'Unknown Christ': Jesus Christ in the writings of Raimundo Panikkar

‘Unknown Christ’: Jesus Christ in the Writings of Raimundo Panikkar

Introduction

Every religion has someone who by their role of bridge-‐‑making between various traditions has paved the way for better understanding of the ‘Other’. Raimundo Panikkar has been such a bridge-‐‑maker between two major religious traditions of the world namely: Hinduism and Christianity. His contribution towards this interaction, and its subsequent influence on Christological formulations in the Indian context is indispensable. One unique characteristic of his Christology is that it emerges out of this interaction between Hinduism and Christianity.

The article basis itself on the premise: “Whether Panikkar side-‐‑lined the historical particularity of Jesus in his christologizing process?” and “whether advaita played any role in this process?”

A person cannot be understood/studied without studying her/his foundation that includes her/his biography, education, and world-‐‑view. Therefore, we begin with such an attempt to understand Panikkar and his philosophy, theology, and world-‐‑views.

Towards the end of the essay, an attempt to evaluate Panikkar’s Christology and a brief survey of advaitic Christology is undertaken too. 1. Panikkar: the Man and His Thought World

Raimundo Panikkar (born Raimundo Pániker Alemany)1 is called a ‘theologian, mystic, priest and poet.’2 He is a product of two living religious traditions of the world:

This article is a revised and elaborated version of the fifth chapter in the recently published book, Samuel George, The Historical Particularity of Jesus: A Dialogue with the Hindu View of History (Kolkata, India: Punthi Pustak, 2014), 161-‐‑224. 1 It is interesting to note what Parappally says about the different renderings of the name of Panikkar. In some of Panikkar’s writings his first name is written as Raymond, in others Raimundo or Raymondo and lately Raimon. Probably it is also a sign of the mutation and growth taken place in Panikkar after his lived experience of world religions other than Christianity. Cf. Jacob Parappally, Emerging Trends in Indian Christology (Bangalore: IIS Publications, 1995), foot note 1, 217. 2 Scott Maniquet, "ʺRaimon Panikkar, 'ʹtheologian, mystic, priest and poet'ʹ dies"ʺ http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/09/02/raimon-‐‑panikkar-‐‑%E2%80%98theologian-‐‑mystic-‐‑priest-‐‑and-‐‑poet%E2%80%99-‐‑dies/ (accessed September 4, 2010).

Christianity and Hinduism, and of two cultures: Western and Eastern.3 National Catholic Reporter calls him “one of the greatest scholars of the twentieth century in the areas of comparative religion, theology, and inter-‐‑religious dialogue.”4 He spent most of his life trying to draw the connection between various religions, emphasizing their compatibilities rather than their differences.

His mother was a well-‐‑educated daughter of the Catalan bourgeoisie; his father derived from a high Malabar caste from South India, had studied in England and was the representative of a German chemical company in Barcelona. Panikkar was born on 3rd November 1918 in Barcelona. He received conventional Catholic education and later moved to study natural science, and philosophy. In 1946 he obtained his degree of Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Barcelona for the thesis: The Concept of Nature. Historical Analysis and Metaphysical Concept. In 1958 he obtained a Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of Madrid, with a thesis entitled: Ontonomía of science: On the meaning of science and its relations with philosophy. In 1961 he obtained his Doctorate in Theology from Lateran University in Rome for the thesis: The Unknown Christ of Hinduism.5Around 1940 he became friends with Opus Dei6 founder Escriva de Balaguer and was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1946.

In 1953/54 he made his first trip to India, which turned out to be a life changing experience for him. He undertook religious studies at the University of Mysore and Varanasi. He was struck by the spiritual wisdom in Hinduism and Buddhism. This visit set the course in life. He later wrote, “I left Europe [for India] as a Christian, I discovered I was a Hindu and returned as a Buddhist without ever having ceased to be a Christian.”7 His meetings and close friendship with three Christian monks namely: Jules Monchanin (1895-‐‑1957), Henri Le Saux, also known as Swami Abhishiktananda (1910-‐‑1973), and Bede Griffiths (1906-‐‑1993) aided his transforming experience in India. Prabhu rightly points out that this interaction with the Christian monks had a telling

3 Parappally, Emerging Trends in Indian Christology, 107. 4 Joseph Prabhu, "ʺRaimon Panikkar, 'ʹapostle of inter-‐‑faith dialogue,'ʹ dies"ʺ http://ncronline.org/news/spirituality/raimon-‐‑panikkar-‐‑apostle-‐‑inter-‐‑faith-‐‑dialogue-‐‑dies (accessed November 30, 2010). 5 "ʺRaimon Panikkar"ʺ http://www.raimonpanikkar.org/ (accessed November 30, 2010). 6 It means “Work of God.” It is a Roman Catholic organization founded in 1928 by Saint Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer (9 January 1902 – 26 June 1975). It teaches that everyone is called to holiness and that ordinary life is a path to sanctity. 7 Raimundo Panikkar, "ʺFaith and Belief: On the Multi-‐‑Religious Experience,"ʺ Anglican Theological Review 53, no. 4 (October 1971): 220.

effect on Panikkar’s thinking especially his adoption of Advaita to understand the mystery of God-‐‑human-‐‑world. He writes,

All four of them [Jules Monchanin, Henri Le Saux, Bede Griffiths and Raimundo Panikkar], in different ways, discovered and cherished the riches and the deep spiritual wisdom of the Indic traditions, and attempted to live out and express their core Christian convictions in Hindu and Buddhist forms. To some extent this multiple belonging was made possible by their embrace of Advaita, the Indic idea of non-‐‑dualism, which sees the deep, often hidden, connections between traditions without in any way minimizing the differences between them.8

For Panikkar, Christianity in its historical evolution began as a Jewish tradition

and then spread to the Greco-‐‑Roman world, acquiring along the way Greek and Roman cultural expressions which have given it a certain form and character. Having grown up and having been trained in a traditional Catholic and neo-‐‑Thomist environment, Panikkar had a profound knowledge of, and respect for, that tradition. This knowledge prepared him for discussions with some of the great minds of 20th-‐‑century Catholicism: Jean Daniélou (1905-‐‑1974),9 Yves Congar (1904-‐‑1995),10 Hans Urs von Balthazar (1905-‐‑1988),11 and others. He was also invited to take part in the Synod of Rome and the Second Vatican Council. Prabhu says of him,

But Panikkar did not confuse or conflate historical contingency with spiritual truth. In Hinduism and Buddhism Panikkar found other languages, in addition to Biblical Hebrew, Greek philosophy, and Latin Christianity, to express the core convictions (the kerygma) of the Christian tradition.12

His strikingly new, rigorously argued and dramatically expressed ideas got the

attention of religious thinkers and secular institutions around the world. Panikkar was invited to teach in Rome and then at Harvard (1966-‐‑1971) and the University of

8 Prabhu, "ʺRaimon Panikkar, 'ʹapostle of inter-‐‑faith dialogue,'ʹ dies"ʺ. 9 Roman Catholic theologian, historian, cardinal and, a member of the Académie Française. He is well-‐‑known for his writings on early Christianity: Dead Sea Scrolls and Primitive Christianity (1958); The Christian Centuries: The First Six Hundred Years (1964); The Theology of Jewish Christianity (1977). 10 He was a very influential Roman Catholic theologian and ardent ecumenist. Some of his important works are: Divided Christendom: a Catholic Study of the Problem of Reunion (1937), Dialogue Between Christians (1996). 11 He was a Swiss theologian, and Roman Catholic Cardinal of high repute. He is well-‐‑known for his 16 volume Systematics. 12 Prabhu, "ʺRaimon Panikkar, 'ʹapostle of inter-‐‑faith dialogue,'ʹ dies"ʺ.

California, Santa Barbara (1971-‐‑1987). Leonard Swidler, occupant of the Chair of Catholic Thought at Temple University, called him, "ʺthe apostle of inter-‐‑faith dialogue and inter-‐‑cultural understanding."ʺ

Universities around the world, Catholic and non-‐‑Catholic, invited him to give lectures. To mention just a few among hundreds delivered, he was invited to give the William Noble Lecture at Harvard in 1973, the Thomas Merton Lecture at Columbia in 1982, and the Cardinal Bellarmine Lecture at the University of St. Louis in 1991. The most prestigious invitation, however, came from the University of Edinburgh, where Panikkar delivered the Gifford Lectures in 1989. These have recently been published by Orbis Books as The Rhythm of Being. Panikkar thus joined the select company of William James, Karl Barth, Albert Schweitzer, and Reinhold Niebuhr to mention just a few of the most famous Gifford lecturers. He was in fact the first Indian and the first Asian invited to give these lectures. In 2004 he was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of Tübingen.

In a fitting obituary in National Catholic Reporter Joseph Prabhu writes, Conversant in a dozen or so languages and fluent in at least six, he travelled tirelessly around the world, lecturing, writing, preaching, and conducting retreats. His famous Easter service in his Santa Barbara days would attract visitors from all corners of the globe. Well before dawn they would climb up the mountain near his home in Montecito, meditate quietly in the darkness once they reached the top, and then salute the sun as it arose over the horizon. Panikkar would bless the elements — air, earth, water and fire — and all the surrounding forms of life — plant, animal, and human — and then celebrate Mass and the Eucharist. It was a profound “cosmotheandric” celebration with the human, cosmic, and divine dimensions of life being affirmed, reverenced, and brought into a deep harmony. The celebration after the formal service at Panikkar’s home resembled in some respects the feast of Pentecost as described in the New Testament, where peoples of many tongues engaged in animated conversation. At the center of these celebrations, retreats, and lectures stood Panikkar himself and his arresting personality. People who heard or encountered him could not help but be struck by this physically small man who packed a punch and who managed to combine the quiet dignity of a sage, the profundity of a scholar, the depth of a contemplative, and the warmth and charm of a friend in his sparkling personality.13

13 Ibid.

“He was one of the pioneers in opening up Christianity to other religions and learning from them,” Joseph Prabhu, a professor of philosophy at California State University, Los Angeles, and the editor of The Intercultural Challenge of Raimon Panikkar (1996), said in a telephone interview to New York Times. He also said,

We can see the new waves of Christianity moving toward the non-‐‑European world in the 21st century, and he prepared the ground for an authentic dialogue between Christianity and other faiths, and beyond that for the cross-‐‑cultural conversation which marks our globalized world.14

Until his death on 26th August, 2010 he lived in Tavertet, in the mountains of

Catalonia, outside Barcelona. Writing about the loss of this great theologian of cultural fecundation Prabhu writes,

Ours is a new era in world history, where thanks to globalization and the increasing communication between cultures and religions it is vital that there be a well-‐‑developed Catholic theology of religions. Panikkar was one of the pioneering and paradigmatic theologians of this new era. He has left us a rich and many-‐‑sided legacy from the liturgical and pastoral to the theological and sapiential. It behooves us who follow him to notice, absorb, and extend that legacy.15

Panikkar has written over 42 books and more than 900 articles. Some of his well-‐‑

known writings are: The Unknown Christ of Hinduism Towards an Ecumenical Christophany; Trinity and the World Religions; The Vedic Experience Matramanjari: An Anthology of Vedas for Modern Man and Contemporary Celebration; Intrareligious Dialogue; Myth, Faith, and Hermeneutics; The Cosmotheandric Experience: Emerging Religious Consciousness; The Silence of God: The Answer of Buddha; Invisible Harmony: Essays on Contemplation and Responsibility, The Fullness of Man: A Christophany; The Rhythm of Being.

2. Context and Content of Panikkar’s Theological Understanding

Panikkar takes seriously the religious and philosophical tradition of India for his theological reflections. He is of the opinion that one has to take one’s environment or context seriously because it is very much part of oneself as one’s individualized substance. For him theology is a dialogue where God’s logos is interacting with our 14 William Grimes, "ʺRaimon Panikkar, Catholic Theologian, Is Dead at 91"ʺ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/us/05panikkar.html?_r=1 (accessed September 5, 2010). 15 Prabhu, "ʺRaimon Panikkar, 'ʹapostle of inter-‐‑faith dialogue,'ʹ dies"ʺ.

own.16 Theologizing is listening to the word of God coming from various sources with discernment.17

In the Indian context because of the exclusivistic attitude of Christianity, the theologians have seldom listened to other voices. Hence what he says is important, “The religious traditions of India have become a locus theologicus of first importance not so much because of an objective existence of as because of a subjective value in the mind and heart of the theologian himself [sic].”18

Panikkar is of the opinion that theologizing has a mystical aspect too as it has to proceed from an immediate contact with the reality beyond concept and doctrines. This has implication for his Christological formulations too. His context of Christological reflection is a dialogue with and encounter of Christianity with Hinduism. Christianity’s claim of the Mystery of God uniquely revealed in Jesus Christ is challenged by Hinduism, which considers that all religions are equal. For Christianity faith is not a formula but the commitment to the person of Christ to whom belongs Hinduism and Christianity whether Hinduism likes it or not.19 It is in this context his Christological formulations develop. He says, that he does not want to “Hinduise Christianity or Christianize Hinduism.”20 In all his writings Panikkar portrays a multiplicity and plurality of thoughts, which sometimes becomes difficult to decipher. Different polarities or dichotomies like God and World, Mythos and Logos, Spirit and Matter, Subject are Object are tried to overcome through a holistic or mystical vision of the Reality. In the holistic approach Panikkar proposes that polarities are to be seen as the character of the reality. For him these polarities are independent and mutually inconclusive if we do not substantivize one of the poles or consider their relation as secondary or as subsidiary to their independent being.21 He is more concerned of the whole than the parts. He thinks that his vocation is to reach the synthesis or to have a basic attitude, which is all-‐‑embracing. But he is also aware of the fact that on the

16 Raimundo Panikkar, "ʺIndian Theology: A Theological Mutation,"ʺ in Theologizing in India. Selection of Papers presented at the Seminar held in Poona on October 26-‐‑30, 1978, ed. M. Amaladoss, T. K. John, and G. Gispert-‐‑Sauch(Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1981), 23. 17 Parappally, Emerging Trends in Indian Christology, 108. 18 Panikkar, "ʺIndian Theology: A Theological Mutation,"ʺ 28. 19 Parappally, Emerging Trends in Indian Christology, 109. 20 Raimundo Panikkar, Myth, Faith and Hermeneutics. Cross-‐‑Cultural Studies (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), 69. 21 Raimundo Panikkar, "ʺThe Silence of the Word: Non-‐‑Dualistic Polarities,"ʺ Cross Currents 24, no. 2 (Summer -‐‑ Fall, 1974): 163.

existential level this is a conversion without alienation, a synthesis without syncretism and a symbiosis without ecclectism.22 This section is an attempt to understand the context and content of Panikkar’s theology. Such a study helps in deciphering his Christological formulations. 2.1. Cosmotheandric Vision

For Panikkar, the cosmotheandric vision is not a metaphysical thesis but is based on a phenomenological analysis. Three irreducible dimensions of reality namely: cosmos, theos, anthropos are brought into an unique platform which Panikkar calls as cosmotheandrism. They are uniquely distinct but inseparable. “Inter-‐‑relatedness,” “inter-‐‑dependence,” and “inter-‐‑independence” are the hallmarks of the cosmotheandric reality. In other words, whatever ‘is’ is relational.23

Panikkar had a deep personal interest in the triad of the reality as cosmos, theos, and anthropos. For him these realities are not mere theoretical propositions but total participation of his person. Following quotations would help us to understand his position from a very early stage of his life:

“As long as I can remember, I have felt a great need to encompass reality, or better, to become reality – to live.”24 “Thus all my life I have been dealing with ultimate questions – not in purely theoretical manner but by fully participating in them as person.”25 “For well over fifty years I have been thematically concerned with the problem spelled out in this book … my lifelong fondness for synthesis, theandrism, myth and apophatism, all vouch for this attitude which I now formulate as a hypothesis….”26 Three assumptions lay behind Panikkar’s cosmotheandric triad:

1. Reality is ultimately harmonious. It is neither a monolithic unity nor sheer multiplicity.

22 Cf. Parappally, Emerging Trends in Indian Christology, 113. 23 Pradeep Mattathilanickel, "ʺCosmotheandric Religion: Panikkar'ʹs Emerging Philosophy,"ʺ in Raimon Panikkar: Being Beyond Borders; A Commemorative Volume, ed. Johnson J. Puthenpurackal(Bangalore & Eluru: ATC & ACPI, 2012), 532. 24 Raimon Panikkar, A Dwelling Place for Wisdom (Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), 90. 25 Ibid. 26 Raimon Panikkar, The Cosmotheandric Experience: Emerging Religious Consciousness, ed. Scott Eastham, First Indian Edition ed. (New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, 1998), 4-‐‑5.

2. Reality is radically relational and interdependent so that every reality is constitutively connected to all other realities. 3. Reality is symbolic as pointing to and participating in something beyond itself. The divine (theos) dimension of reality is the depth-‐‑dimension to everything that is. Consciousness is the human (anthropos) dimension of reality, which is not reducible to humanity. Humans participate in the evolving cosmos of which they are a part. They also participate in the divine mystery of freedom.27 The world (cosmos) of matter, energy, space and time are realities that are ultimate and irreducible. Every spiritual action is a radical cosmic interaction. “There is no sacredness without the secularity of the world.”28 The ‘worldly’ realities in this sense are co-‐‑extensive with both human consciousness and the divine mystery.

This mutual inter-‐‑dependence, inter-‐‑penetration and distinct uniqueness of each realities of cosmos, theos, anthropos is called cosmotheandric reality. 2.2. Advaita and Trinitarian Vision of Reality

In order to overcome the dichotomy between monism and dualism Panikkar proposes an advaitic intuitive interpretation. It is the immediate experience of the reality, which overcomes the dilemma of monism-‐‑dualism scheme of understanding and expressing reality. He says that advaita does not absolutize the difference or ignore it.29 He argues that advaitic intuition helps us to overcome dualism, monism, pantheism and monotheism. Along with it he proposes a Trinitarian vision of Reality because Trinitarian intuition of reality expresses the radical relativity, which allows the possibility of infinite unity and infinite differences.

The Father is the apophatic,30 silence dimension of the reality. “The Father has no being, the Son is his being.”31 The Father, “the kenosis of Being,”32 is “a movement

27 Panikkar shows that genuine human experience involves the triad of senses, intellect and mystical awareness in correlation with matter, thought and freedom. Cf. George Panthanmackel, "ʺThe Notion of Reality: The Vision of Reality,"ʺ in Raimon Panikkar: Being Beyond Borders; A Commemorative Volume, ed. Johnson J. Puthenpurackal(Bangalore & Eluru: ATC & ACPI,, 2012), 103. 28 Ibid., 104. 29 Cf. Parappally, Emerging Trends in Indian Christology, 113. 30 For Panikkar apophatism means the silence of Being (subjective genitive), that dimension which is silence. Raimundo Panikkar, The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man, Icon-‐‑Person-‐‑Mystery (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1979), 47-‐‑48. 31 Ibid., 48. 32 Ibid., 47.

towards … no place, a prayer, which is always, open towards … the infinite horizon which, like a mirage, always appears in the distance because it is no-‐‑where.”33

The Son, for Panikkar is, God-‐‑from God and Light-‐‑from Light. Only the Son is. Son is the Being of God. He is the Logos. He writes, “Strictly speaking one does not see the Son outside the Father nor the Father outside the Son.”34 Whatever is asserted of God is asserted of the Son.

The Spirit is the divine immanence. Father is the absolute ‘I’ the Son the ‘Thou’ and the Spirit ‘We.’ The Father eternally empties ‘himself’ (kenosis) in the Son but without ever exhausting himself as it were. This eternal inexhaustibility is due to the Spirit who is the eternal return to the Father.35

For Panikkar, there is an interdependence and mutual penetration between Father, Son and Spirit where the irreducible uniqueness of each ‘Person’ is preserved without in any way mitigating their interdependence. It is here one sees the advaitic influence of Panikkar in explaining Trinity. For Panikkar, there is an advaitic relationship between the three Persons. Father, Son and Spirit are each unique in their own self and being but fully interdependent so that no one can be without the other.36

In his vision of reality, Panikkar argues that Eternity and temporality are co-‐‑related. Here history is neither absolutized nor neglected as inconsequential. This understanding of him is important for his views on historical Jesus. For him the Mystery of Christ is both historical Jesus and the living Christ of existential experience. This Christ is the only link between Absolute and relative, eternal and temporal and is known and unknown in all-‐‑authentic religions. In his approach to Christology he applies the principle of complementarity.37

33 Ibid., 48-‐‑49. 34 Ibid., 49. 35 Ibid., 42. In a similar fashion, Keshub Chunder Sen (1838-‐‑84) too explained Trinity. In his famous lecture That Marvelous Mystery – The Trinity in 1882, Sen explained Trinity as Saccidāananda (Sat, Cit, Ananda). God, the Father is the Creator, the Still God, the I am, the Force, the True, the Sat (Truth). God, the Son is the Exemplar, the Journeying God, the I love, the Wisdom, the Good, the Cit (Intelligence). God the Holy Spirit is the Sanctifier, the Returning God, the I save, the Holiness, the Beautiful, the Ananda (Joy/Bliss). Robin H. S. Boyd, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology (New Delhi: ISPCK, 1994), 34. 36 Francis X. D'ʹSa, "ʺRelevance of Raimon Panikkar: A Preview of His Thought,"ʺ in Raimon Panikkar: Being Beyond Borders; A Commemorative Volume, ed. Johnson J. Puthenpurackal(Bangalore & Eluru: ATC & ACPI, 2012), 49. 37 Cf. Samuel George, "ʺThe Emergence of Christology in the Early Church: a Methodological Survey with Particular Reference to the Anti-‐‑Heretical Polemics of Irenaeus of Lyons,"ʺ Asia Journal of Theology 24, no. 2 (October 2010): 219-‐‑253.

2.3. Mythos and Logos

For Panikkar, the Reality can be comprehended by the way one looks at human consciousness. This for him is best understood by two modes of human awareness, namely: mythos and logos. Mythos for him is the “human organ of apprehension on the same level as the logos and in constant relation with it. Mythos and Logos are two human modes of awareness, irreducible one to the other, but equally inseparable.”38 It is the unspoken, non-‐‑linguistic dimension of human knowing.39 In the same line he says that myth is the horizon of experiencing the reality. For Panikkar myth is the vehicle of mystery. Without the aspect of mystery myth would die and vice-‐‑versa.40 Seen and believed from inside myth is the foundation of our conviction of truth but seen from outside it appears to by legend, which sometimes can mean non-‐‑factual. For Panikkar, there is an advaitic relationship operating between mythos and logos. They cannot be separated; there cannot be the one without the other. Symbol is understood at the level of mythos, not at the level of the logos. D’Sa writes, “When one reduces a symbol to an ‘object,’ i.e., when one has overlooked the symbolic difference, then one has reduced it to the logos-‐‑level. The mythos speaks through the logos and logos gets it’s meaning from the mythos.”41

Panikkar considers one of the myths of the Western civilization is history. Incontestability of facts is determined by referring to history. Myths are compared to history and anything, which does not come up to its evaluative standard, is rejected as mythical. He argues that there is nothing called pure facts. He does not agree to the contemporary dictum – whatever historical is real and therefore true, and whatever is mythic is non-‐‑historical and therefore imaginary or unreal. From the mythical point of view, the historical facts are only partial, transitory examples of a reality, which is

38 Panikkar, Myth, Faith and Hermeneutics. Cross-‐‑Cultural Studies, 100. 39 Cf. Ibid., 100ff. Prioritizing of reason in modernity has almost receded the mythic mode of human consciousness. The mythic mode is the background consciousness that functions as our ‘operating system’ of being-‐‑and-‐‑understanding. Often it is not objectifiable, recognizable in the thematized world of the logos (as in the case of an iceberg only a part of it is visible and recognized). It is an evident fact that mythic consciousness is dominant in our ‘knowing’ and logos-‐‑consciousness in our ‘knowing-‐‑about.’ There is a constant movement from mythos to logos and vice-‐‑versa. Whatever is presently understood comes sooner or later to be expressed in language and that the meaning of whatever is expressed in language recedes in the background and becomes part of our ‘operating system.’ D'ʹSa, "ʺRelevance of Raimon Panikkar: A Preview of His Thought,"ʺ 53. 40 Panikkar, Myth, Faith and Hermeneutics. Cross-‐‑Cultural Studies, 41. 41 D'ʹSa, "ʺRelevance of Raimon Panikkar: A Preview of His Thought,"ʺ 54.

always trans-‐‑historical.42 In his approach to Christology in the Indian context he prefers to emphasize the trans-‐‑historical dimension of Christ than the historical dimension of Christ in the Jesus of Nazareth because he feels that if historical Christ is proclaimed in India (as it is done by the missionaries) it is nothing but Docetism is preached.43 2.4. Symbol and Symbolic Difference

Symbol is of great significance in understanding Panikkar. It has a special meaning for him. D’Sa explains it quite clearly:

To put it in my own ways: the cosmic, the human, and the divine dimensions (cosmotheandric) are part of a symbolic world. A smile, for example, is the symbol of the joy, which is the symbolized reality.44 But this symbol (smile) really makes present the joy, which is in the heart. The joy is accessible to the perceiver only through its symbol, the smile. A symbol (like a smile) ‘symbolizes,’ that is, it ex-‐‑presses and makes present the ‘symbolized reality’; the one who ‘sees’ the joy in the smile is the symbolizer. The symbolizer who is struck by the smile does not invent, he only discovers the smile. With the discovery of the symbolized reality in the symbol the person is transformed into a symbolizer.45

There is an advaitic relationship between the symbol, symbolized reality, and

symbolizer. The differences between them are both maintained as well as obviated in a unique way. For Panikkar, the world of symbol is holistic. The symbolizer needs to under stand the symbolized reality in the symbol. If not, it would be mere object, where there is no depth-‐‑dimension. ‘Appearance’ cannot replace ‘Reality’ neither are they

42 The contemporary world is for the emphasis on the historical as real. The other dimensions of reality are often neglected as unexplainable. The Hindu world-‐‑view emphasizes on the wholeness and interrelatedness, and neglects the historical dimension of reality and human person. They have an underlying mythical world-‐‑view. For Hindus, Krishna is not a historical fact but a religious fact. He is the living and real Krishna for most of those who believe in him. For most Christians the true Christ who is equally living and real is not the mystical Christ but the historical fact of Jesus and his continuing presence in history. Panikkar, Myth, Faith and Hermeneutics. Cross-‐‑Cultural Studies, 99-‐‑100. 43 Ibid., 100. 44 Other examples can be ‘lily’ as the symbol of ‘purity’; body as the symbol of person. To identify lily as purity or body as person is to “overlook the symbolic difference, i.e., to mistake the symbol for the symbolized, is precisely avidyā, ignorance, confusing the appearance with the reality. But Reality is Reality precisely because it ‘appears’ real.” Ibid., 6-‐‑7. 45 Raimon Panikkar, The Rhythm of Being: The Gifford Lectures (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2010), ix. D’Sa’s comments on the concept of symbol of Panikkar, Cf. D'ʹSa, "ʺRelevance of Raimon Panikkar: A Preview of His Thought,"ʺ 50-‐‑51.

opposed to each other. However, ‘appearance’ is that mode of being through which ‘Reality’ ‘puts in its appearance.’ ‘Appearance’ is the symbol-‐‑dimension and ‘Reality’ the symbolized-‐‑dimension.46

Panikkar clarifies that the world of symbol is very unique and different from the world of concepts.47 Only the symbol points and takes us to the real ‘thing’ that is symbolized.48 This position of Panikkar has implications for his Christological formulations. 2.5. Person and Individual

Panikkar is of the opinion that the mystery of Person is the symbol of the ontonomical49 order. For him person is neither singular nor plural but a conjunction. Relationship is ontological and constitutive of a person. He says, “A person is a bundle of relationships, which cross at a certain centre which may call personality, or even, if we insist individuality, but this centre can in no way be regarded as synonymous for a person.”50

An individual is a practical, pragmatic and artificial abstraction and is a concept limited to qualification. It answers the question what one is but not who one is. Panikkar is of the opinion that we can avoid the dichotomy created between individual and society if we take into serious consideration the integral anthropology in which human being is not considered as an individual but as a person and society not as a sum total of individuals but as the natural and personal field of human interaction.51 In his principle of individuation, Panikkar, talks about double principle of individuation: a principle of singularity which depends on external factors in order to distinguish one from another and a principle of individuality which belongs to the 46 D'ʹSa, "ʺRelevance of Raimon Panikkar: A Preview of His Thought,"ʺ 51. 47 The world of symbol grasps us; whereas, in the world of concepts we grasp (conceive) things. But the latter happens only when the former has grasped us in the first place. Panikkar, The Rhythm of Being: The Gifford Lectures, 197. Panikkar writes, “The concept demands understanding, the symbol participation.” 48 D'ʹSa, "ʺRelevance of Raimon Panikkar: A Preview of His Thought,"ʺ 54. 49 Ontonomy is the realization of the nomos, the law of the one, being, at that profound level where the latter is rather unique and proper manifestation of the former. It recognizes the radical relativity of all beings, sees the reality as non-‐‑dualistic polarities and opens the way for the integration of every being into harmonious whole. Panikkar, The Rhythm of Being: The Gifford Lectures, ix. 50 Raimundo Panikkar, Worship and Secular Man: An essay on the Liturgical Nature of Man, considering Secularization as a Major Phenomenon of our time and Worship as an apparent fact of all times; A Study towards an integral Anthropology. (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1973), 4. 51 Ibid.

constitution of beings which are capable of self-‐‑identity.52 Applying this principle to Christology, he asks whether Jesus is to be considered just as an individual in the sense of asking for his singularity as a member of a species or just one human being, a single individual. It is also the question whether identity has to take the form of singularity. For him, the ‘who’ of Christ is more important than the ‘what’ of Christ. He further argues that we have to emphasize the Personhood of Christ and not his individuality as Jesus of Nazareth. He says, “Individuality is precisely what does not answer the question of ‘who’.”53

2.6. Personal Identity of Jesus

“Who is Jesus?” is a difficult proposition to answer. Panikkar says what John the Baptist asked Jesus “Are you the one who is to come or are we to expect some other?” is a question relating to the identity of his person in relation to what he is doing. Panikkar opines that the question of ‘who’ of Jesus cannot be individualized by mere ‘here or there’ but he is constantly the ‘coming one.’54 The answer of Jesus as the Messiah is an appropriate one because according to Panikkar the whole interest was not centred on the individual but on what Jesus performs. He is also aware of the fact that for Christians the question of person is unavoidable. It is for the Christian proclamation that the question of the personal identity of Jesus remains crucial. Christian tradition and Scripture amply makes it clear that only in this one name is there salvation.55

It is important to know who or what this name is. For Panikkar this name, which saves, is the real symbol. He opines, “It is a symbol, i.e., the very ‘thing’ as it appears and is in the world of our experience.”56 Parappally says, of Panikkar’s idea,

A pure thing does not exist and not can exist without a name. Since any name with a meaning has an ontonomic constitution, it is neither purely subjective nor objective. The name is real symbol because it is thrown between subject and object. If there is salvation in ‘no other name,’ this is to affirm that only through the reality intended by this name is there salvation. It also implies that this reality can be experienced by people having

52 Raimundo Panikkar, "ʺThe Meaning of Christ'ʹs Name in the Universal Economy of Salvation,"ʺ in Evangelization, Dialogue and Development, ed. M. Dhavamony(Rome: Documenta Missionalia, 1972), 205. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid., 195. 55 Cf. Acts 4:11. 56 Panikkar, "ʺThe Meaning of Christ'ʹs Name in the Universal Economy of Salvation,"ʺ 197.

other world-‐‑views, cultures and religious traditions which have another meaningful name for this reality which for Christians is constituted by no other name than that of Jesus.57

Panikkar further argues that the answer of Peter to Jesus that “You are the

Messiah, the Son of the living God,” [I]s a perfect answer in the context. But he asks how can we translate this confessional statement in the way a Christian understands it into the Indian context, where there is no expectation of a Messiah and a strong belief that all are sons [sic] of the living God?58

He further asks that how can a people whose world-‐‑view is different from the

Semitic world-‐‑view share a confessional statement imposed on them. Do they need to undergo circumcision of their mind? When on the pagan church circumcision was imposed the Jerusalem church rejected it. It must be admitted that the affirmations, which we consider universal, may be far from being universal, acceptable and understandable to all cultures. Panikkar is of the opinion that if Christ is to be intelligible to various cultures other than the Semitic culture then it has to be really translated not transliterated.59

Panikkar is of the opinion that the principle of individuation is not useful in understanding the person of Jesus Christ. Because in his person he is not among many, and so the principle of singularity cannot be really applied to him. The principle of individuality would refer to what makes Jesus, Jesus or the ‘what’ of Jesus or the thing-‐‑in-‐‑itself, but this will not answer the question of ‘who’ Jesus is or his identity as a living person.60 Parappally clarifies,

Panikkar is not saying that one cannot distinguish Jesus as a historical figure from James or John. But in the traditional theology, Christ is not a single individual in the sense of other historical personages, simply a member of the species.61

Panikkar says, “Christ has human nature indeed, he is Man but he is not a

human person. He is a divine person, the second person of the Trinity having assumed

57 Parappally, Emerging Trends in Indian Christology, 132-‐‑33. 58 Ibid., 133. 59 Ibid. 60 Panikkar, "ʺThe Meaning of Christ'ʹs Name in the Universal Economy of Salvation,"ʺ 207. 61 Parappally, Emerging Trends in Indian Christology, 134.

human nature.”62 Taking cue from Chalcedon Panikkar explains that one can argue that Christ assumed human nature as a whole by assuming a human nature, the human nature of the man Jesus, whose human person was subsumed by the divine person of the Logos.63 He also says, “In this context Christ is man but not one man, a single individual; he is the divine person, incarnated, a divine person in hypostatic union with human nature.”64 But Christ’s presence for the believer is the divine presence. Panikkar do admits that if we push this too far then this can lead to Docetism or dis-‐‑incarnationalism. He affirms that as Christians we need to affirm the living Christ of Christian faith who is present in the sacrament and in others, who transcends time.65 This he insists because if the principle of singularity cannot be applied to Jesus, because he is not simply a numerical exemplar of a species of human mortals, then he admits too that Christ’s divinity is defended but his true humanity is imperilled. If we insist on that the humanness of Jesus has to be defended, this is to insist that the man Jesus has something peculiar, which, while not diminishing his humanness transcends it in such a way as to make possible a sui generis relationship with him. This uniqueness of Jesus according to Panikkar is the very negation of singularity and individuality.

The problem Panikkar faces in understanding Jesus is how one can encounter him as true God and true human. He applies the concept of personhood, which is a radical relationship in which the inquirer himself/herself is involved. No one can ask who Jesus is without first asking his/her relationship with Jesus. The living Christ, which, Panikkar affirms and also asks Christians, to affirm can be discovered only in this relation between the inquirer and Jesus. Since no one can say “Jesus is Lord except in the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3), the real ‘who’ can be experienced through the influence of the Holy Spirit and love. In this way, one can discover Jesus both as an individual and a person. Panikkar affirms, “The one who we seek in Jesus is the risen one whom men [sic] crucified and whom God made Lord and Anointed.”66 So for Panikkar the Jesus of the Christian faith is the Risen Lord and does not mean exclusively the historical Jesus, the Christ whom a Christian believer experiences in faith. He also says,

62 Panikkar, "ʺThe Meaning of Christ'ʹs Name in the Universal Economy of Salvation,"ʺ 205. 63 Raimundo Panikkar, "ʺThe Relation of Christians to their Non-‐‑Christian Surroundings,"ʺ in Christian Revelation and World Religions, ed. Josef Neuner(London: Burns & Oates, 1967), 163. 64 Panikkar, "ʺThe Meaning of Christ'ʹs Name in the Universal Economy of Salvation,"ʺ 205. 65 Ibid., 207. 66 Ibid., 208.

The word Jesus has two basically different meanings: one as historical category and another as personal category. The former is reached by means of historical identification, which permits us to speak about Jesus and about the beliefs Christians have in and through him. The latter is reached by means of personal identity and allows us to discover him a ‘part’ or rather pole of our personal being, as one of the many traits that make our person.67

In his unique way he says, “Christ is the Lord but the Lord is not only Jesus.”68

By saying it Panikkar is trying to overcome the limitations of the understanding of Christ in the historical category. He is of the opinion that if Christ is understood only in terms of historical category as a great human in history then he will only remain there and one would not be moved to any personal relationship with Jesus. He says, “Jesus will appear as a historically relevant figure of the past, with a still uncommon influence on the present, but the only point of reference will be his historical coordinates and his impact on the lives of other men [sic].”69

This approach of Panikkar to understand Jesus beyond the historical categories takes us to his understanding on Trans-‐‑historical Christ.

2.7. Trans-‐‑historical Christ and Historical Jesus

The fundamental Christian confession is that Word became flesh. Jesus of the Christian believer is the Risen Christ. This Christ cannot be pointed out exclusively in the outer world of history or in the inner world of one’s world view and beliefs.

In the encounter with Hinduism, which sees history as transitory or impermanent and asserts that historical dimension is not everything that belongs to reality, Panikkar emphasizes the trans-‐‑historical dimension of Christ.70 He is of the opinion that in the context of Hinduism, which gives more validity to the trans-‐‑historical dimension of reality than historical, the emphasis must be on the trans-‐‑historical dimension of Christ if the proclamation of Christ has to be relevant and meaningful.71 He is of the opinion that any Christological formulations in the Asian

67 Ibid., 212. 68 Quoted in Parappally, Emerging Trends in Indian Christology, 136-‐‑37. 69 Panikkar, "ʺThe Meaning of Christ'ʹs Name in the Universal Economy of Salvation,"ʺ 212. 70 Parappally, Emerging Trends in Indian Christology, 137-‐‑38. 71 Panikkar, Myth, Faith and Hermeneutics. Cross-‐‑Cultural Studies, 100.

context to claim universality cannot limit itself to the historical Jesus of Nazareth. If Christ is proclaimed only as Jesus of Nazareth the emphasis would be on the particularity which cannot claim universality because historicity is only one aspect of reality. In this sense Panikkar’s Christology is an emphasis on the concreteness of Christ, which does not destroy his universality because the reality of Christ is experienced in the personal experience of his uniqueness.72 He argues that if Jesus’ particularity is emphasized then Jesus Christ would be seen as one among many saviours, an avatāra. This he feels that go against the fundamental Christian teaching that God is revealed fully, finally, absolutely, and uniquely in Christ Jesus. Panikkar affirms that only concreteness can safeguard universality of the Christian faith and the uniqueness of Christ. If we insist only on the historical existence of Jesus Christ it is difficult to explain his uniqueness or universality.73 For a Christian believer who encounters the risen Christ in faith cannot but identify him with the historical Jesus. That is the guarantee that the Person who enters into the very structure of his being had a human existence at a particular time of history. But then the believer knows that it was a limited existence even though it was an important event that God became a human. The Christ of the believer’s existential and personal experience transcends the historical constraints and limitations. Using the Eucharist as an example for the presence of Christ Panikkar maintains that the real living Christ one encounters in communion is not the historical existence of Jesus.

He argues further that whole Christ is historical and trans-‐‑historical, pre-‐‑existent, historically existed at a particular place, time and culture. He is the living one who can be encountered in the sacraments, in all human beings especially among marginalized. This person who makes the human, the divine and the cosmic communion possible cannot be thought of only in spatio-‐‑temporal categories. It is true that it is in Jesus of Nazareth one encounters Christ, but the Christ of the Christian believer transcends the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

72 Raimundo Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. Towards an Ecumenical Christophany, Revised and enlarged ed. (Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 1982), 21. 73 Raimundo Panikkar, "ʺThe Invisible Harmony: A Universal Theory of Religion or a Cosmic Confidence in Reality?,"ʺ in Towards a Universal Theology of Religions, ed. Leonard Swidler, Faith Meets Faith Series (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1987), 140.

2.8. Relation between Christianity and Hinduism

As noted earlier that Panikkar’s Christology develops in the interaction between Hinduism and Christianity. Therefore, it is important for us to look briefly the way he sees the relation between these two living traditions. The relation between Christianity and Hinduism is influenced by the differences of cultures, Western and Indian. Panikkar is of the opinion that Western culture is based on the principle of contradiction while the Indian principle is based on the principle of identity. As a consequence, duality, multiplicity of finite beings, exclusion of the sphere of infinity, a pyramidal concept of being in which God is at the top, and an either/or attitude in the sphere of thought characterize the Western outlook. The identity of the self with the Absolute, multiplicity true, only in thought but not real, “not only but also approach” in the sphere of thinking mark the Indian approach.74

The greatness of the Western spirit lies in its sharpness of thought; meticulous application of the principle of contradiction, analysis, making distinction and drawing conclusions, whereas the genius of the Indian spirit lies in its power to synthesize, its concern for the whole. Western philosophy searches for “the specific” in creation but Indian philosophy looks for “the common bond” that unites the Creator and creation.75 It is in the context of these cultural differences that Panikkar sees the relation between Christianity and Hinduism.

2.8.1. Christianity as fulfilment of Hinduism

Panikkar is of the opinion that “the proclamation of the Gospel is not the preaching of a doctrine or the teaching of a moral law or making propaganda for a Church, but the proclamation of the name of Christ, of salvation, of the divinization of man [sic].”76 Christianity in India should not be an imported highly developed religion but Hinduism converted to Christ, Hinduism that has passed through the mystery of death and resurrection, in substance the old Hinduism but renewed and transformed

74 Quoted in Antony Mookenthottam, Indian Theological Tendencies: Approaches and Problems for Further Research as Seen in the Works of Some Leading Indian Theologians (Berne, Switzerland: Peter Lang, 1978), 69-‐‑70. 75 Ibid., 70. 76 Raymond Panikkar, Kerygma und Indien zur heilsgeschichtlichen Begengung mit Indien (Hamburg: Bergstedt, 1967), 47. Quoted in Mookenthottam, Indian Theological Tendencies: Approaches and Problems for Further Research as Seen in the Works of Some Leading Indian Theologians, 71.

like the risen Christ.77 He says, “The church brings every true and genuine religion to its fulfilment through a process of death and resurrection. The deep meaning of conversion is this: True Christianity is the fulfilment of every religion through conversion.”78 According to Panikkar, Christ came not to establish a religion, much less a new religion but to fulfil every justice and to bring every religion to fulfilment.79

2.8.2. ‘Unknown Christ’ – the meeting place of Hinduism and Christianity

In Hinduism there is a living Presence of that Mystery which Christians call Christ. The Presence does not necessarily imply historical presence. Christians should find no difficulty in admitting this, for they recognize the same truth in, precisely, the Eucharist, which celebrates Christ’s real presence without identifying it with his historical reality. To put it bluntly, Christians do not eat the proteins of Jesus when they receive the Eucharist. The Western world is, by and large, influenced by an exaggerated historicism, as though historicity were the sole component of reality.80

He makes an interesting observation that Christians often think that Christ is the fulfiller of all religions and is the expectation of all people, but this idea should not overshadow the truth that Christ is not only at the end but also at the beginning.81 “He could be not be the Omega of everything if he were not also the Alpha.”82 He also says, “He is the ‘Principle’ that spoke to Men [sic]83 and was already at work before Abraham. He was present in the stone that Moses struck so unbelievingly, and he acted in Moses himself when he chose to share the life of his people. He may have been called by many names, but his presence and activity were always there. The encounter is not an

77 Panikkar, Kerygma und Indien zur heilsgeschichtlichen Begengung mit Indien, 48-‐‑49. Quoted in Mookenthottam, Indian Theological Tendencies: Approaches and Problems for Further Research as Seen in the Works of Some Leading Indian Theologians, 71. 78 Quoted in Mookenthottam, Indian Theological Tendencies: Approaches and Problems for Further Research as Seen in the Works of Some Leading Indian Theologians, 71. 79 Ibid. 80 Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. Towards an Ecumenical Christophany, 2. 81 Ibid. 82 Ibid. 83 Panikkar has interesting take on the use of the ‘sexist’ term Man. He writes, “Two reasons compel me to write Man with a capital letter: a) to indicate that it means the human being in its totality and thus includes the male and the female; and b) to imply that Man is an irreducible reality standing side by side – with all necessary ontological distinctions – with God and the world.” Ibid., ix.

ideological one, but takes place in the deepest recess of reality – in what Christian tradition calls the Mystery.”84

He also says, “I need [to] hardly add that Christ will never be totally known on earth, because that would amount to seeing the Father whom nobody can see.”85 He further states that,” It was even good that Christ disappeared and went away; otherwise Men [sic] would have made him a king, or a God.”86

He is also very clear in his assertion by what he means by Christ. He says, I have tried to show … that though a Christian believes that ‘Jesus is the Christ’ as more than an abstract affirmation, i.e. as an expression of faith, this sentence is not identical to ‘the Christ is Jesus.’ Similarly, I have maintained that the assertion ‘Christ is the Lord’ cannot simply be reversed. It is not necessary, in fact, that the Lord be named Christ or acknowledged by this title, because the saving name of Christ is a supername, above every name.87

Further he says, “The Christian affirms that ‘Jesus is the Christ’ and that ‘Christ

is the Lord.’ Jesus, who is the Christ for Christians, is more – but not less – than Jesus of Nazareth, prior to his resurrection.”88 But he maintains that,

The Christian, however, cannot say that ‘Christ is only Jesus,’ philosophically, because the is does not need to mean is-‐‑only and, theologically, because in fact the risen Jesus is more than the Jesus of Nazareth, which is only a practical identification, different from personal identity.89

In another place he says, “Though Christ is the Mystery in the sense that to see

Christ is to reach the Mystery, still the Mystery cannot be totally identified with Christ. Christ is but one aspect of the Mystery as a whole, even though he is the Way when we are on that way.”90 He also says, “The historical name Christ should not be confined to the thus-‐‑named historical Jesus hardly needs mentioning here.”91

He writes,

84 Ibid., 3. 85 Ibid., 8. 86 Ibid., 8-‐‑9. 87 Ibid., 14. 88 Ibid. 89 Ibid. 90 Ibid., 24-‐‑25. 91 Ibid., 27.

The bold Christian claim is that in the historical unfolding of God’s revelation there is a kind of pluralistic continuity held together by what they call Christ. Thus the existential dharma of Hinduism belongs to what Christians call the ‘economy of salvation.’ The Christians believes that God, who has spoken through the prophets and the rishis (sages), has sent once for all his living and personal Word – one with him – to fulfil all justice, all dharmas.92

He also writes, Christians have tended to interpret Christ only in their own terms. Or perhaps we should say, rather, that the Christian context (first Judaism, then European religions, followed by scientific cosmologies which culminated in the myth of history) has been generally taken to be the universal human texture. Other expressions of the human and religious phenomenon have scarcely been taken seriously. When Christians were confronted with a fact outside their horizon, they were tempted to close ranks in a gesture of exclusiveness.93

To overcome the deep-‐‑rooted misunderstanding arising out of mutual

exclusiveness of various religions he says that one would have to analyse the different approaches to the Centre from which all is sustained and which is also the key to intelligibility.94 He argues that the Western Christianity with its theistically charged language has identified its centre with the historical Jesus. For Hinduism it is Brahman, Atman, vāc, bindu and other symbols of the Absolute according to different contexts.95

He also says, The predominantly Semitic mentality of Christian theology will reach the intelligibility of the ultimately ungraspable Mystery ascending to it from its concrete and visible manifestation: Jesus Christ. Thus, once the identification is made, it will with great difficulty proceed in the opposite direction; if Jesus Christ is the Mystery, any other real name or real manifestation of the Mystery, any other real name or real manifestation of the Mystery will appear inadequate because it contradicts the Christian understanding.96

92 Ibid., 50-‐‑51. 93 Ibid., 51. 94 Ibid. 95 Ibid. 96 Ibid., 52.

He thinks it is a major obstacle when Christianity identifies, with necessary qualifications, Christ with Jesus, the son of Mary.97 He further argues that, “If Christ is the point of contact, yet only Christians can fully accept his necessary identity with Jesus, we cannot hope for a very fruitful dialogue.”98

3. Christological formulations in the writings of Panikkar: A Review

Christological thoughts are so important in the life and thoughts of Panikkar that it makes up the major component in his theology. Interestingly it is his Christological treatises in The Unknown Christ of Hinduism that made him so familiar in the Christian theological circle and put him in the category of leading Indian Christian thinker. His latest work: The Fullness of Man. A Christophany is also on Christology. Parappally rightly states: “One of the greatest contributions of Raimon Panikkar to the humanity, according to me, is his insight into the Mystery of Christ, which is at the same time an insight into the mystery of humans and their world.”99 However, it is always hinged to his pluralistic and Cosmotheandric100 vision.

Panikkar’s program is to revise Christology101 because he finds the present day Christology to be deficient especially those in the context of contemporary world religions. His major contest would be that Christology as prevalent today has taken shape exclusively in the Western context. 102 His Christophany is inter-‐‑cultural, and inter-‐‑religious.

97 Ibid., 57. 98 Ibid. 99 Jacob Parappally, "ʺFrom Christology to Christophany: Panikkar'ʹs Liberating Vision of Christ,"ʺ in Raimon Panikkar: Being Beyond Borders; A Commemorative Volume, ed. Johnson J. Puthenpurackal(Bangalore & Eluru: ATC & ACPI, 2012), 566. 100 In an interview he explains what Cosmotheandric Principle is. It is in which what is divine, what is human and what is earthly are the three irreducible dimensions, which constitute what is real. These three parts are not juxtaposed simply by chance, but they are essentially related and together constitute the Whole. They are parts because they are not the whole, but they are not parts, which can be separated from the whole. http://www.share-‐‑international.org/ARCHIVES/religion/rl_cfnew-‐‑innocence.htm (accessed April 2, 2008) 101 Raimundo Panikkar, "ʺPresent-‐‑Day University Education and World Cultures,"ʺ in Asian Cultural Studies(Mitaka, Tokyo: International Christian University, Institute of Asian Cultural Studies, 1993), 196. 102 Raimundo Panikkar, "ʺThe New Role of Christian Universities in Asia,"ʺ in Asian Cultural Studies(Mitaka, Tokyo: International Christian University, Institute of Asian Cultural Studies, 1993), 173-‐‑174. Cf. Raimundo Panikkar, "ʺThe Christian Challenge for the Third Millennium,"ʺ in Christian Mission and Interreligious Dialogue, ed. Paul Mojzes and Leonard Swidler(Lewiston/Qwenston/Lampster: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1990), 114-‐‑115.

3.1. Christology as Christophany

Panikkar presents Christ with the help of Vedanta thought, relating Trinitarian mystery in the light of Advaita.103 Christ is the living symbol for the totality of reality; the Divine principle; the crystallization point around which the human, the divine and the material can grow. He uses mostly traditional Christian categories but interprets them with the intuition of philosophico-‐‑religious thought patterns of Hinduism and especially Vedanta.104 The theandric nature of his Christology points to the fact that his Christology is shaped against the background of Hindu speculation that has little regard for the empirical world.105 For him Christology of today’s context does not do justice to the present day scenario. In his own words he says, “a Christology deaf to the cries of men and especially women today would be incapable of uttering any ‘word of God’ whatsoever.”106 He finds the traditional Christology to be inadequate in facing the realities of today. He proposes to replace Christology with a new concept, which he calls as ‘Christophany.’107 Christophany for him represent a Christian self-‐‑reflection to be worked out in the third millennium. He wishes to avoid any universalistic claim in his new program of Christophany. He finds Christophany108 more profound than Christology. He says,

Christophany intends to offer an image of Christ that all people are capable of believing in, especially those contemporaries who, while wishing to remain open and tolerant, think they have no need to either diluting their ‘Christianity’ or of damaging their fidelity to Christ.109

103 Raimundo Panikkar, The Trinity and World Religions. Icon-‐‑Person-‐‑Mystery, Inter-‐‑Religious Dialogue Series, No. 4 (Bangalore/Madras: CISRS/CLS, 1970), 45-‐‑46,62. 104 Parappally, Emerging Trends in Indian Christology, 171. 105 Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. Towards an Ecumenical Christophany, 127-‐‑128. Robin H. S. Boyd, India and the Latin Captivity of the Church. The Cultural Context of the Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 89. Also Boyd, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology, 254. 106 Raimon Panikkar, The Fullness of Man: A Christophany, trans., Alfred DiLascia (Delhi: ISPCK, 2006), 5. 107 Raimon Panikkar, "ʺA Christophany for our times,"ʺ Theology Digest 39, no. 1 (Spring 1992): 3. 108 The whole creation is a ‘theophany’, a manifestation of God; but this manifestation takes place in Christ, thus the whole creation becomes a ‘Christophany’, a manifestation of Christ. Cf. Bede Griffiths, Christian Ashram: Essays towards a Hindu-‐‑Christian Dialogue (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1966), 218-‐‑219. 109 Panikkar, The Fullness of Man: A Christophany, 9.

By Christophany, he proposes a far better option than predominant interpretations of Christ when facing the challenges of the contemporary world.110 Komulainen opines that his program of Christophany seems to stand for religiosity of a higher level than traditional Christianity.111 Here it should be noted that Panikkar sees Christophany as continuation of the traditional Christology not an abrogation of it by providing it with new prospects.

For Panikkar, Christophany112 begins with a critique of ‘traditional’ Christology. However, it is not just a total rejection/negation of the traditional Christology, but rather he takes valuable insights from it and moves further from it without supplanting it. 3.1.1. Critique of Traditional Christology

Traditional Christology113 was an interpretation of Christic experience conditioned by the life-‐‑situation of those who interpreted their Christic experience. It is unintelligible outside the context in which it is articulated. More often such a Christology was associated with the western colonialism and tended to propagate a ‘colonial’ Christ that was and is detrimental to the Christian gospel. A forceful imposition of such Christological formulations gave rise to a distorted image of Christ. A credible image of Christ is to be open, ecumenical and be tolerant at the same time hinged on the commitment to Christ.

Panikkar writes, “in fact, from the Christian perspective, the entire modern problematic concerning inter-‐‑cultural and inter-‐‑religious questions hinges upon the vision of Christ. Is he an oriental pantocrator? A western divine prophet? The private of God of Christians? The universal saviour? A man for others?”114

For Panikkar Christology would be a systematic reflection on the mystery of Christ. However, this reflection needs to transcend all categorizations and definitions. Traditional Christologies often emerged within the ecclesial tradition without any dialogue with the religious traditions as if they did not matter.115 With Christianity

110 Panikkar, "ʺThe Christian Challenge for the Third Millennium,"ʺ 121f. 111 Jyri Komulainen, An Emerging Cosmotheandric Religion? Raimon Panikkar'ʹs Pluralistic Theology of Religions (Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 2003), 117. 112 Manifestation of Christ to human consciousness; the maximal actualization of our true identity, an image of Christ that all people are capable of believing in it; Christophany considers the other religions of the world as loci theologici. D'ʹSa, "ʺGlossary of Panikkarian Ex-‐‑Pressions,"ʺ 631. 113 Traditional Christology emerged in the context of a ‘dialogue’ with Judaism, Greco-‐‑Roman world, German mentality, and Islamic culture. 114 Panikkar, "ʺA Christophany for our times,"ʺ 3. 115 Parappally, "ʺFrom Christology to Christophany: Panikkar'ʹs Liberating Vision of Christ,"ʺ 567.

becoming a state religion during the Roman Empire, Christology too became an inner-‐‑ecclesial affair relevant to those who do not share the Judeo-‐‑Christian world view. Such a Christology has narrowed the scope of its relevance to the wider world view. It is in such a context Panikkar argues for a Christophany instead of a Christology.

Now, his Christophany cannot be understood without considering the central question of Christology – the identity of Jesus, the Christ.

Christology raises the fundamental question, “Who is Jesus Christ?” Panikkar opines that the ‘Who’ of Christ cannot be individualized by mere “here or there” as he is constantly ‘the coming one.’116 The interest is focused not on the individual but on what he performs. And he is performing his messianic function. However, one cannot avoid asking question about his identity, his personhood. Christian gospel is about the communication of who he is. Is his identity, a ‘name’ – the “name above all name”? A name, “under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). It is not a nominalistic label, a magical formula or a sign but a real symbol that saves. Panikkar writes, “It is a symbol, i.e., the very ‘thing’ as it appears and is in the world of our experience.”117 As noted earlier, the name, Jesus is the symbol of the reality to which it point towards.118 To exist is to have a name. The name is the real symbol and it is the ‘middle-‐‑point’ between the subject and the object. If there is salvation in ‘no other name,’ only through the reality intended by this name there is salvation. Panikkar is of the opinion that, this reality can be found/encountered by others by other names (of the reality) that are equally meaningful and valid. Whereas, for Christians, there is ‘no other name’ given than that of Jesus, the Christ. It is not the name that is important but the reality that it intends to proclaim and points to. The answer of Peter “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16) to the question “Who is Jesus Christ?” is a perfect answer in the context in which the question is raised.119 How can one translate this confessional statement into the Indian context, where there is no expectation of a Messiah but there is a strong belief that all are the sons and daughters of the living God? Panikkar would raise a fundamental question that how a Semitic world-‐‑view can be intelligible to those who are outside its purview. Any answer to such a fundamental question of faith is to be translated not transliterated. Panikkar argues that the question of “Who is Jesus of Nazareth?” is to be answered not through the principle of individuation (what individualizes and distinguishes one from the other) but through a principle of identity.120 More on it can be found under the section on Person and Individual (2.5) and Personal Identity of Jesus (2.6).

116 Panikkar, "ʺThe Meaning of Christ'ʹs Name in the Universal Economy of Salvation,"ʺ 195. 117 Ibid., 197. 118 Cf. Section 2.4. 119 Panikkar, "ʺThe Relation of Christians to their Non-‐‑Christian Surroundings,"ʺ 163. 120 Parappally, "ʺFrom Christology to Christophany: Panikkar'ʹs Liberating Vision of Christ,"ʺ 569.

In his christologizing process, Panikkar is aware of the pluralistic context of India. Rather, it the context that decides his christologizing process. His approach is to deepen the understanding of the Mystery of the Person of Christ who is present in all authentic traditions because he is the Lord of everything that is and that comes into being.121 For him, traditional Christology with its focus on the identification of who Jesus is rather than the identity of Jesus Christ fails to deliver in a religiously and culturally pluralistic context of India. It is this context, he proposes a Christophany, where one is enamoured into the insight of the mystery of oneself, others, world and God. 3.1.2. Christophany

It should be noted here that Christophany is an attempt by Panikkar to offer a credible figure of Christ in a religiously plural context. For him Christophany transcends traditional Christology without supplanting it.

For him, Christophany is the disclosure of Christ to human consciousness and the critical reflection. It emphasizes a more passive attitude of receiving the impact of Christ over against a more aggressive search by human reason for intelligibility. In it, the Christ figure is integrated into the cosmological vision along with similar homeomorphic122 equivalents of the same in other traditions. Christophany is open, dialogical, ecumenical, and tolerant. It is the epiphany of the ‘Real,’ which Christians call Christ whereas the others can call with other equivalent names. It is the “fruit of dialogue with other religions as much as an interpretation of its own tradition over against a modern background.”123 Christophany is a collective attempt of Christians and others (along with other religio-‐‑cultural-‐‑secular-‐‑atheistic) to understand the figure of Christ.

Panikkar’s Christophany is explained in nine sutras124 (theses):125 1. Christ is the Christian symbol for the Whole of Reality. In this symbol the subject and object, interpreter and interpreted, phenomenon and its numenon126 inextricably unite.127

121 Ibid., 573. 122 The role a function has in one system is equivalent to the role that a function has in another system; the equivalence is not between two roles but between the role that each function plays in its respective system; the correlation between points of two different systems so that a point in one system corresponds to a point in the other. D'ʹSa, "ʺGlossary of Panikkarian Ex-‐‑Pressions,"ʺ 636. 123 Panikkar, "ʺA Christophany for our times,"ʺ 5. 124 Rules or aphorisms. 125 Panikkar, The Fullness of Man: A Christophany, 143-‐‑184. 126 A Greek term meaning that which is hidden behind the appearance (phainomenon); beyond sensible experience; “that which is thought;” the thing in itself. Ibid., 194. 127 Panikkar, "ʺA Christophany for our times,"ʺ 5.

2. The Christian Recognizes Christ In and Through Jesus. This discovery is not a mere confession but the existential encounter with the reality that the name of Jesus Christ discloses. Through personal experience coupled with the communities’ (church’s) one encounters Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, Light from Light, True God from God. 3. The Identity of Christ is not the same as His Identification. He can be objectively identified specific to a time and context but that cannot reveal his identity, which can be encountered through a loving relationship, which is a gift from above. 4. Christians do not have a monopoly on the knowledge of Christ. Since the name Jesus discloses the reality behind it – the Christ, in a pluralistic context other such names of the divine too can reveal various facets of Christ. The mystery of Christ therefore, is not a monopoly of Christians. 5. Christophany transcends Tribal and Historical Christology. Traditional Christology remained a tribal Christology because it did not take into consideration in its understanding of Christ the other religious experiences. It also did not address the crisis threatening the human existence namely: ecological crisis, poverty, injustice, oppression, wars, religious fundamentalism and communalism. Christophany on the other hand is an approach that is open to the mystery of the Christic experiences in other religious traditions and takes into account seriously the crisis facing human existence. Christophany is dialogical. 6. The Protological,128 Historical, and Eschatological Christ is a unique and Selfsame Reality, Distended in Time, Extended in Space, and Intentional in Us. This sutra expresses the unity of Christ as creator, redeemer, and glorifier. Christophany reveals to us the threefold tension our awareness of reality. In the experience of temporal realities we get a hint of something not distended or timeless, eternal. In the experience of reality as spatial and material we get a glimpse of something more than matter, i.e., Spirit. Now human experience is not just that but also transcendent. It tends towards something beyond us, a transcendence, to God. Christophany points to the fact that creation, redemption and glorification relate to the mystery of Christ. The protological Christ129 is the same as the historical Christ and the historical Christ cannot be separated from the Eucharistic Christ or the Risen Christ. In the same way, the Christ of the Parousia cannot be separated from the Eucharistic and Risen Christ.130 In this sense Christophany helps us to live consciously our tempiternal life, the fullness of a life that has integrated past, present, and future so that we may live in fullness (John 10:10).131

128 Study of Origins. 129 Pre-‐‑existent Christ. 130 Parappally, "ʺFrom Christology to Christophany: Panikkar'ʹs Liberating Vision of Christ,"ʺ 576. 131 Panikkar, The Fullness of Man: A Christophany, 169.

7. The Incarnation as Historical Event is also Inculturation. For Panikkar, incarnation is not only a historical event but also a cultural event intelligible in a particular cultural context. He writes,

[I]t does not simply state that Christ’s epiphanies exhibit many aspects and that they are psychologically and historically conditioned. It also tells us that incarnation itself, as a historical event, has taken place within a specific cultural milieu. The effect is twofold: the incarnation is already an inculturation and can therefore be received only within a certain culture. At the same time, it profoundly transforms the culture that receives it. The Bethlehem event that is grafted onto Semitic culture changes it radically.132 Outside the Semitic culture, the incarnation’s intelligibility depends on its trans-‐‑

historical value. In Hindu India the experience of the Christian Christ is better enacted by the sacrifice of the Eucharist than by the narrative of Bethlehem. This sutra also addresses the issue of history as understood by various cultures. Incarnation is an historical event happened in history at a particular time and context but it is a temporally irretrievable event as it affects human being who cannot be reduced to a mere historical being. Panikkar further clarifies, “Christianity is a historical religion. If we abolish history, we destroy Christianity. But Christ, the Christ in whom historical Christianity claims to believe, is more (not less) than a historical reality, in the sense in which Semitic culture has understood history.”133 Incarnation is already an inculturation in a particular culture, in that sense, as noted above; it profoundly transforms the culture that receives it. Thus, it can be said that no such thing exists as an absolute Christophany; because “a ‘chemically pure’ Christology from which we can deduce Christian ideas and a Christian praxis does not exist.”134 8. The Church is considered a site of the Incarnation. For Panikkar, church is the locus of incarnation and also the locus of salvation. The nature of the church is cosmic, in that sense it is the sacramentum mundi – the mystery of the universe. For him, the Patristic ecclesiology with its message of cosmic relevance is the way one needs to move forward. Such an ecclesiology prevents us from a microdoxical135 interpretation of the Church reducing it to an official institutionalized Church and to mere historical phenomena.136 Church is the place where humanity and the entire creation can find the fullness of salvation; because it is here they find the mediator, the bond, the Christ.137

132 Ibid., 174. 133 Ibid., 173. 134 Ibid., 175. 135 “Microdoxy is the identification of reality, of true faith, of orthodoxy with a certain established conception that is no longer open, mysterious, hidden.” Microdoxy means the desire to enclose orthodoxy in small truths, narrow concepts, refusing to open oneself to deeper interpretations. 136 Parappally, "ʺFrom Christology to Christophany: Panikkar'ʹs Liberating Vision of Christ,"ʺ 577. 137 Panikkar, The Fullness of Man: A Christophany, 178.

“The Church is the very place in which the whole universe pulsates until its final destiny.”138 Man is the priest or the mediator in this cosmic-‐‑divine battle. Christophany shows us our role in the universe in the recapitulation of all things in Christ (Eph. 1:10). 9. Christophany is the Symbol of the Mysterium Coniunctionis of Divine, Human, and Cosmic Reality. It is the manifestation of the mysterious union of the divine, human, and cosmic dimension of reality. In Jesus Christ one encounters the Father as well as the full Man and the cosmos. Panikkar calls this the cosmotheandric intuition. He writes,

In Jesus Christ, the finite and infinite meet. In him the human and the divine are united. In him the material and the spiritual are one – to say nothing of masculine and feminine, high and low, heaven and earth and, obviously, the historical and trans-‐‑historical, time and eternity.139 Further he maintains that the meaning of Christophany would be distorted if we

separate the figure of Christ from the Trinitarian mystery. He writes, If we separate Jesus Christ from the Trinity, his figure loses all credibility. He would then be a new Socrates or any other great prophet. If we separate Jesus Christ from humanity, he becomes a Platonic ideal of perfection – frequently an instrument for dominating and exploiting others by becoming a God. If we separate his humanity from his actual historical journey on this earth and his historical roots, we turn him into a mere gnostic figure who does not share our concrete and limited human condition.140

One notes, Panikkar’s Christophany is more mystical than traditional

Christology, more cosmological, and also more universal in the respect that its purview extends outside the boundaries of Christendom. It also embraces “homeomorphic equivalents”141 in other religions. It should also be noted here that for Panikkar, Christ is, integrated into a cosmological vision in his Christophany. 3.2. Hindu influence on Panikkar’s Christological program

One of the fundamental presuppositions of Panikkar’s Christology is the supposition that the Christian concept of history is somewhat alien to the Indian

138 Ibid. 139 Panikkar, "ʺA Christophany for our times,"ʺ 20. 140 Panikkar, The Fullness of Man: A Christophany, 184. 141 Homeomorphic equivalence (literally, ‘similar forms’) suggests there may be a “correlation of functions” between specific belief in distinct religions or cultures. If so, the correlation cannot be imposed from outside but needs to be discovered from within through what is called a “topological transformation.” http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ghall_panikkar.htm. (accessed November 4, 2009). Cf. Ibid., 169.

mind.142 Panikkar finds that Hinduism and most of the Asian religions have no sense of history. For these religions there is no messianic expectation of the Mediator acting in history.143 Therefore, according to Panikkar, the Jesus of history has no relevance for the Asian religions.144 He begins by de-‐‑emphasizing the historicity of Christ, and he never finds it to be relevant in the context of the dialogue with religions. Panikkar underscores that,

If we start with the historicity of Christ, essential though it may be, we are liable to be gravely misunderstood. Not only is the Christian concept of history somewhat alien to the Indian mind, but such a concept is in fact a posterior to the Incarnation of Christ. To admit the Christian idea of history, indispensible though it may be for an understanding of the historical Christ, is to presuppose the Christian concept of Christ. We should not forget that the first philosophical interpretation of Christ begins with a discourse not on the ‘flesh’ but on the ‘Logos’ that became ‘flesh.’ Most philosophical misunderstandings about Christ and the Incarnation, from the side of Indian philosophy, would disappear if Christian theology tried to speak of Christ in a way that might make sense to the partner in dialogue.145 It is to this advaitic philosophy that Panikkar turns to construct his Christology.

His is an advaitic Christ. For him Advaita is far more important to him than being just an Indian decoration.146 MacPherson is right in her assertion about the relationship Panikkar has with advaita Vedanta. She says,

Panikkar’s main dialogue partner is the Advaita Vedanta tradition as he develops his concept of trinity. He searches for the Trinity within the Advaita Vedanta School of Hinduism. Although he proceeds to a further concept of Trinity that will embrace all religions, he never lets go of the basic tenets of the Advaita Vedanta tradition. It becomes the current that sweeps him even beyond the world religions to the realm of the secular

142 Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. Towards an Ecumenical Christophany, 164. 143 Cheriyan Menacherry, Christ: The Mystery in History. A Critical Study on the Christology of Raymond Panikkar (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1996), 211. 144 “Panikkar does not show great interest in the historical aspect of Christology.” Antony Mookenthottam, Towards a Theology in the Indian Context (Madras: CLS, 1980), 235. Cf. Mookenthottam, Indian Theological Tendencies: Approaches and Problems for Further Research as Seen in the Works of Some Leading Indian Theologians, 72. 145 Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. Towards an Ecumenical Christophany, 164f. Cf. Raimundo Panikkar, "ʺĪsvara and Christ as a Philosophical Problem,"ʺ Religion and Society VI, no. 3 (October 1959): 8. 146 Komulainen, An Emerging Cosmotheandric Religion? Raimon Panikkar'ʹs Pluralistic Theology of Religions, 104.

sphere without his ever letting go of the Advaitin tenet of Atman (innermost Self) equalling Brahman (God).147 As to why he chose it: it is precisely because Advaita answers the Indian question,

the search for identity. As soon as one follows the Indian way of asking questions: what is in common? Advaita answers in a sophisticated way. Furthermore it succeeds in maintaining the unity, the basic identity, as well as the obvious multiplicity through its system of different levels of reality.148

He identified a problem common in Advaita Vedanta as well as in scholastic Christian theology: how is it possible to overcome the gulf between the Absolute and the relative, between the Creator and the created, between the real and illusory, the infinite and the finite, the unconditioned and the contingent?149

One finds an affinity between the Hindu understanding of the ‘Self’ as atman and Panikkar’s Christology. Panikkar’s Christology rests on his understanding of ‘person’ that is strongly reminiscent of the way in which atman is understood in Advaita philosophy.150 Perhaps Panikkar’s Christology could be interpreted in terms of atman. The following two features in particular seem to connect Panikkar’s understanding of ‘person’ with the advaitic understanding of atman. First, atman is very dynamic and extensive, transcending the universe. Secondly, despite its infiniteness, atman is the centre of everything. Therefore, it may not be too far-‐‑reaching a conclusion to presume that Panikkar’s Christophany had taken shape under the influence of Advaita philosophy.151

Even on the advaitic influence on Panikkar’s Christology there are differences of opinions. Mitra opines that Panikkar is a proponent of “integral Advaita” i.e., combination of Sankara’s kevala-‐‑advaita (unqualified Advaita) and Ramanuja’s vishist-‐‑advaita (qualified or theistic Advaita), or, in more popular terms, integrating Advaita and

147 Camilia Gangasingh MacPherson, A Critical Reading of the Development of Raimon Panikkar'ʹs Thought on the Trinity (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1996), xiii. 148 Komulainen, An Emerging Cosmotheandric Religion? Raimon Panikkar'ʹs Pluralistic Theology of Religions, 107. 149 Ibid., 108. 150 Panikkar, "ʺThe Invisible Harmony: A Universal Theory of Religion or a Cosmic Confidence in Reality?,"ʺ 129-‐‑130. 151 Komulainen, An Emerging Cosmotheandric Religion? Raimon Panikkar'ʹs Pluralistic Theology of Religions, 133.

Bhakti.152 Boyd regards him as a Christian bhakta rather than as a Christian Advaitin.153 In the midst of differences of opinions one can still conclude that Panikkar’s Christological formulations were influenced by advaitic philosophy and his Christophany finds its’ certain roots there.154 The cosmotheandric vision of Panikkar is shaped by a fusion between the theandric vision of Christianity and the theocosmic vision of the Hindu religion.155

It is also important to note that it is not only the advaitic philosophy, which influenced his Christological formulations. Biographically, the encounter with Abhishiktananda was crucial for Panikkar, though often overlooked. It was he who encouraged him to think along Hindu-‐‑Christian lines to develop a “Trinitarian Advaita” or “Cosmotheandrism.”156

Interestingly it is also found that Panikkar was well acquainted and influenced by Bultmann and his method of demythologization. He was also a regular visitor to the annual seminars on hermeneutic demythologization in Rome. However, the difference between him and the European dymythologizers are that the latter were interested in severing myth from historicity, whereas Panikkar appears to be uninterested in questions of history and historicity. For him the religious narratives are valuable to the extent that they transmit myth-‐‑stories which open up towards the transcendent-‐‑their possible historical content is of no particular religious interest.

The basic problem that we are probing in Panikkar’s Christology is his tendency in minimizing (?) the historicity of Jesus Christ. One can surmise, whether it is the 152 Kana Mitra, Catholicism-‐‑Hinduism. Vedantic Investigation of Raimundo Panikkar'ʹs Attempt at Bridge Building (Lanham: University Press of America, 1987), 148. 153 Robin H. S. Boyd, Kristadvaita: A Theology for India (Madras: CLS, 1977), 156, 418. 154 Kajsa Ahlstrand, Fundamental Openness. An Enquiry into Raimundo Panikkar'ʹs Theological Vision and its Presuppositions, Studia Missionalia Upsaliensia LVII (Uppsala: Uppsala University, 1993); Ewert H. Cousins, "ʺPanikkar'ʹs Advaitic Trinitarianism,"ʺ in The Intercultural Challenge of Raimon Panikkar, ed. Joseph Prabhu(Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1996), 119-‐‑130; Francis X. D'ʹSa, "ʺThe Advaita Principle of Raimon Panikkar and Trinty,"ʺ in Negotiating Borders: Theological Explorations in the Global Era. Essays in Honour of Prof. Felix Wilfred, ed. Patrick Gnanapragasam and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza(Delhi: ISPCK, 2008), 158-‐‑166; MacPherson, A Critical Reading of the Development of Raimon Panikkar'ʹs Thought on the Trinity; Menacherry, Christ: The Mystery in History. A Critical Study on the Christology of Raymond Panikkar; Joseph Prabhu, "ʺLost in Translation: Panikkar'ʹs Intercultural Odyssey,"ʺ in The Intercultural Challenge of Raimon Panikkar, ed. Joseph Prabhu(Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1996), 1-‐‑21; Israel Selvanayagam, "ʺRevisiting The Unknown Christ of Hinduism: A Tribute to Raymundo Panikkar,"ʺ Gurukul Journal of Theological Studies XXI, no. 2 (June 2010): 61-‐‑70. 155 Menacherry, Christ: The Mystery in History. A Critical Study on the Christology of Raymond Panikkar, 119. 156 Ahlstrand, Fundamental Openness. An Enquiry into Raimundo Panikkar'ʹs Theological Vision and its Presuppositions, 102.

advaitic influence coupled with Butlmannian demythologization, which is responsible for such a stand on the historical particularity of Jesus?

4. The Problem

Panikkar’s project of bridging the vast expanse of various religions with Christ is interesting but our problem lies with its outcome. He ends up constructing a theoretical model that bestows on Jesus of Nazareth as a historical personality only of marginal significance.

Panikkar would argue that any overemphasis on the category of transcendence and a lack of historical consciousness as real threats for the Hindus. For him, unity among religions cannot be founded on too transcendental a principle, for Incarnation and concrete symbols are needed. Komulainen opines, “It is thus impossible to avoid the impression that, in this respect, Christianity has something to teach Hinduism.”157

Panikkar in his attempt to interpret the significance of Jesus of Nazareth transposes him to a cosmological category. Everything that functions, as an intermediary is Christ for him:

Christ, manifest or hidden, is the only way to God. Even by definition the unique link between the created and the uncreated, the relative and the Absolute, the temporal and the eternal, earth and heaven is Christ, the only mediator. Between these two poles everything that functions as intermediary, link, ‘conveyor’, is Christ, the sole priest of the cosmic priesthood, Ruler of the Universe par excellence.158

This cosmic Christ he finds in every religion. He says, This, then, is Christ: that reality from whom everything has come, in whom everything subsists, to whom everything that suffers the wear and tear of time shall return. Hence from the point of view of Christianity, Christ is already present in Hinduism. The Spirit of Christ is already at work in Hindu prayer. Christ is already present in every form of worship, to the extent that it is adoration directed to God.159

157 Komulainen, An Emerging Cosmotheandric Religion? Raimon Panikkar'ʹs Pluralistic Theology of Religions, 129. 158 Panikkar, The Trinity and World Religions. Icon-‐‑Person-‐‑Mystery, 52. 159 Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. Towards an Ecumenical Christophany, 49.

What happens with Panikkar is that his Christ eventually becomes so abstract that he starts applying the philosophical term ‘the christic principle.’160 Panikkar admits the Incarnation of the Logos in history. But he finds universal relevance only for the post-‐‑Easter Jesus Christ and not for the pre-‐‑Easter Jesus. He showed how Christians could affirm that Jesus is the Christ though we cannot claim that Christ is only Jesus.161 He says, “Christ, the saviour is not to be restricted to the merely historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth.”162 For him Jesus of Nazareth is not absolutely identical to Christ. He says,

Jesus, the son of Mary, is a historical figure. History is central to Christianity. But Christ is not exhausted in Jesus, so to speak. And Christ is more than history. Reality is not identical with history. It would undermine Christianity of its meaning – and – truth – were we to deny the historicity of Jesus or than Jesus in the Christ. But it would similarly reduce Christianity to a mere historical phenomenon were we to totally equate Christ with Jesus....163

Panikkar explains that, for him, Christ is the most powerful living symbol – but

not limited to the historical Jesus – of the fully human, divine, and cosmic reality that he calls the Mystery.164 This symbol can have other names: for example, Rama, Krishna, Ishvara or Purusha.165 Christians call him “Christ,” because it is in and through Jesus that they themselves have arrived at faith in the decisive reality. Each name, however, expresses the indivisible Mystery,166 each being an unknown dimension of Christ.167 It should be noted that Panikkar’s Christological formulation is developed in distinguishing between faith and belief. Faith for him is the person’s basic religious experience; it is a constitutive element of the human person. Belief, on the other hand, is the particular expression adopted by this fundamental human attitude in any given

160 Komulainen, An Emerging Cosmotheandric Religion? Raimon Panikkar'ʹs Pluralistic Theology of Religions, 130. 161 Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. Towards an Ecumenical Christophany, 14. 162 Raimundo Panikkar, Salvation in Christ: Concreteness and Universality, the Supername, Inauguration Lecture at the Ecumenical Institute of Advanced Theological Study (Tantur, Jerusalem: 1972), 51. 163 Raimundo Panikkar, "ʺInstead of a Foreword: An Open Letter,"ʺ in Theological Approach and Understanding of Religion. Jean Danielou and Raimundo Panikkar: A Study in Contrast(Bangalore: Kristu Jyoti College, 1987), xiii. 164 Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. Towards an Ecumenical Christophany, 23, 26-‐‑27. 165 Ibid., 27. 166 Ibid., 29. 167 Ibid., 30.

tradition. The content of faith, which he calls “the mystery,” is the lived relationship to a transcendence, which seizes the human being. It is common to all religions. He calls this mystery “cosmotheandric reality,” to denote a transcendence experienced by the human being in the cosmos. On the other hand, the content of belief consists of the various myths in which faith takes concrete expression. In Christianity, we have the “Jesus-‐‑myth”; other traditions offer similar myths. All these myths have equal value. Christianity gives the name of Christ to the mystery, but the mystery can assume other names. While the various religious traditions differ on the level of belief, they are all seen to coincide on that of faith. Intra-‐‑religious dialogue cannot require a bracketing of faith, but it can demand a bracketing of beliefs – indeed, their transcending. Panikkar hopes for a cross-‐‑fertilization of the beliefs of the various traditions.168

It should be noted here that such a position of Panikkar becomes problematic, especially the place held by Jesus of history in Christian faith. For the first Christians, as the apostolic kerygma testifies (Acts 2:36), the historical Jesus was personally identical to the Christ of faith. He has become the Christ in his being raised by the Father. He was also the very mystery (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:4; Col. 2:2; 4:3; 1 Tim. 3:16) preached by Paul. Thus, Jesus himself belongs to the actual object of faith. He is inseparable from Christ, on whom he bestows historical concretion.169

Panikkar makes a ‘dangerous’ distinction between the Mystery and the Jesus-‐‑myth – that is, the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history – whom he distinguishes as objects of faith and belief, respectively. Dupuis raises a very fundamental objection to such a stand. He says,

Is a reduction of the Jesus-‐‑myth to an object of belief as distinct from faith compatible with the Christian profession of faith in the person from Nazareth? And as if by backlash, is not the content of faith reduced in turn to a neutral relationship to a transcendence, without a concrete object?170

It also raises the question: how are we to conceive the relation of the “reality” of

“mystery,” the Christ symbol, to the historical Jesus? Dupuis argues that in Panikkar’s thought now “distinction is introduced between the Christ of faith and the Jesus of

168 Jacques Dupuis, Towards a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism, 2nd ed. (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1998), 151-‐‑152. 169 Ibid., 152. 170 Ibid. Also Jacques Dupuis, Jesus Christ at the Encounter of World Religions, Faith Meets Faith Series (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1991), 187.

history that no longer seems to give adequate account of the Christian assertion that Jesus is the Christ.”171 He further states,

[Even] with all his explanation, Raimundo Panikkar’s thought does not appear to preserve the indissoluble link between the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history. It betrays this link, weakening it and threatening, in spite of itself, to reduce the Christian message to a kind of gnosis. Were we to follow it, we should arrive, willy-‐‑nilly, both a Christ-‐‑myth and a Jesus-‐‑myth.172

It is important here that we understand why Panikkar ‘minimizes’ the historicity

of Jesus. According to Panikkar, Christ is not primarily a historical person but a divine person who embraces all history.173 In the Christian tradition Jesus is the one who reveals Christ, hence his importance. However, this importance is limited, because it is only for Christians that Jesus is Christ.174 If Jesus becomes an obstacle instead of a vehicle for Christ, then Christ has the priority and Jesus must yield. This is not the same as saying that Jesus is not Christ. For Panikkar it would be then ‘Jesus is Christ but Christ is not exclusively Jesus.’

Panikkar finds a problem with the historical Jesus which according to him, is that historical facts are important only for those who live in the ‘myth of history.175 In the West historical facts, “what really happened,” are central when substantiating the truth about something. The Indian mind, however, regards historical facts as events that have not reached their full reality. Therefore, in an Indian context, the very insistence on the historicity of Jesus may be counterproductive, as the Jesus of history is seen as less real than the Christ of faith.176 It is for this reason that Panikkar is less interested in the historical Jesus at least in the Indian context. “But the problem is not only pastoral” says, Ahlstrand “He is cautious not to overemphasize the historical Jesus also in other contexts.”177

171 Dupuis, Jesus Christ at the Encounter of World Religions, 186. 172 Ibid., 187. 173 Kerygma und Indien. Zur Heilgeschichtlichen Problematik der christlichen Begegnung mit Indien, Hamburg: 1967, 44, quoted in Ahlstrand, Fundamental Openness. An Enquiry into Raimundo Panikkar'ʹs Theological Vision and its Presuppositions, 160. 174 Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. Towards an Ecumenical Christophany, 14. 175 Panikkar, Myth, Faith and Hermeneutics. Cross-‐‑Cultural Studies, 100. 176 Ahlstrand, Fundamental Openness. An Enquiry into Raimundo Panikkar'ʹs Theological Vision and its Presuppositions, 162. 177 Ibid.

Panikkar said, “if we remain attached exclusively to the ‘Saviour’, to his humanity and his historicity, we block, in a manner of speaking, the coming of the Spirit.”178 He cautions the Christians that they should not be satisfied with the historical Jesus – however divinized.179

As noted earlier Panikkar objects to what he calls “myth of history” which has led to a situation in which Christology is confined only to the incarnation of Christ. He says,

But it would similarly reduce Christianity to a mere historical phenomenon were we to totally equate Christ with Jesus, the Eucharist with a pure remembrance of the past, and Christian faith to mere adherence to a written doctrine conserved through translations and secondary sources. Is not Christian faith an experience of the present? Is not Christ the risen Jesus? And resurrection is not an exclusively historical category as much as it is not a chemical or gravitational phenomenon.180

For Panikkar the claims of Jesus go beyond spatio-‐‑temporal sphere. It is to the

cosmic Christ Panikkar alludes. Panikkar establishes his pluralistic theology of religions explicitly upon cosmic Christology. He says,

The ultimate reason for this universal idea of Christianity, an idea which makes possible the catholic embrace of every people and religion, lies in the Christian conception of Christ: he is not only the historical redeemer, but also the unique Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, the only ontological – temporal and eternal – link between God and the World.181

Panikkar’s cosmic Christology is based on a distinction between ‘person’ and

‘individual.’ This enables him to detach the true meaning of Jesus, i.e., his personal mystery, from a particular historical being.182 He in addition distinguishes between ‘personal identification’ and ‘personal identity’: personal identification is based on empirical data, on the external signs of the person in question, thus not touching the person proper.183 Whereas for Panikkar personal identity means the nucleus of a human

178 Panikkar, The Trinity and World Religions. Icon-‐‑Person-‐‑Mystery, 58. 179 Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. Towards an Ecumenical Christophany, 29. 180 Ibid., 83. Cf. Panikkar, "ʺInstead of a Foreword: An Open Letter,"ʺ xiii. 181 Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. Towards an Ecumenical Christophany, 82-‐‑83. 182 Komulainen, An Emerging Cosmotheandric Religion? Raimon Panikkar'ʹs Pluralistic Theology of Religions, 129. 183 Ibid., 130.

being that is involved in personal relationship. By taking such a stand Panikkar is attempting to find a category in the framework of which Christology could operate regarding Jesus of Nazareth. Proving a Christological method as deficient that concentrates on the historical Jesus can establish a new methodology that takes into account of a more universal horizon. By locating Christ’s significance in the field of personal identity, he constructs a theoretical model that bestows on Jesus of Nazareth as a historical personality only marginal significance.184 The quest for the historical Jesus should be superseded by efforts to grasp his very essence, which cannot be found in history or in our inner world.185

Why Christ is more important than Jesus of history? Panikkar writes, Who then is Christ? He cannot be pointed out exclusively in the other world of history, nor in the exclusively inner world of one’s own thoughts, feelings and beliefs. Morphologically speaking the figure of Christ is also here ambivalent and, in a way, theandric.186

In line with this argument, Panikkar is free to see Christ anywhere. This enables

him to pursue his idea of homeomorphic equivalents of Christ in other religions, as well as his cosmic Christology and pan-‐‑christic ontology.187

There are two premises in Panikkar’s Christology. First, he defines ‘person’ as an extensive and dynamic concept that is in tension with more outward ‘identification.’ Secondly, he locates the real meaning of Jesus in the sphere of ‘personal identity.’ He thus repudiates as idolatrous if the authentic ‘thou’ is confined to one particular object. This also seems to hold true for Jesus of Nazareth.188 One also finds a personalistic leaning in Panikkar’s thinking.

Panikkar finds another theological argument for Christ being more than Jesus of Nazareth, which rests on a rather idiosyncratic understanding of resurrection.

184 Komulainen finds a methodological resemblance between Panikkar and German Protestant theology as influenced by Kantian philosophy, according to which issues of faith are related to the area of the person, not of nature. F.N. 84, ibid. 185 Ibid. 186 Raimon Panikkar, "ʺThe Meaning of Christ'ʹs Name in the Universal Economy of Salvation,"ʺ in Service and Salvation (Nagpur Theological Conference on Evangelization), ed. Joseph Pathrapankal(Bangalore: Theological Publication of India, 1973), 257. 187 Komulainen, An Emerging Cosmotheandric Religion? Raimon Panikkar'ʹs Pluralistic Theology of Religions, 131. 188 Panikkar, "ʺThe Meaning of Christ'ʹs Name in the Universal Economy of Salvation,"ʺ 257.

According to him the risen Christ is not limited to any geographical categories or historical parameters.189

Panikkar has a number of arguments for why Christology should espouse a wide, even cosmic frame of reference. This leads him to adopt a very critical attitude towards methodology according to which Christology should adhere to the historical Jesus.190

The problem we face with his Christophany which he himself confesses, “[it] -‐‑ in itself ambiguous – could be interpreted to mean a more or less docetic vision of Jesus.”191 He qualifies his statement to state that “we employ the word in a sense that is in greater harmony with the manifestation of the Christian scriptures – that is, a visible, clear, public manifestation of a truth.” He further states that,

This notion of Christ must include both the figure of the historical past and the reality of the present. Christophany is not mere exegesis of “inspired” texts nor Christian archaeology, and not even an exclusively analytic and deductive reflection of that historical reality which Christians call Christ. Christ does not belong to the past alone.192

Most of the critics of Panikkar’s Christological approach have problem with

Panikkar’s understanding of history and its application in his Christological thinking. The distinction Panikkar makes between the historical identification of Jesus with Christ and the historical identity of the Person of Jesus of Nazareth is not acceptable to many a theologian. They argue that Panikkar reduces Christ to a principle and he presents Christ as Vedantic Isvara.193

To Panikkar’s emphasis that ‘Christ, the Saviour is, not to be restricted to the merely historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth, or the identity of Jesus is not to be confused with historical identification’ Chethimattam says,

… [H]e seems to have gone too far to the opposite extreme, almost to the point of denying all value to the concrete and historical humanity of Christ. The central mystery of the incarnation is not the divinity of Christ but his humanity assumed by Logos. If that humanity is reduced to mere ‘theophany’ of some value only to the Jews of

189 Panikkar, "ʺThe Invisible Harmony: A Universal Theory of Religion or a Cosmic Confidence in Reality?,"ʺ 33-‐‑34. 190 Komulainen, finds an affinity between Panikkar’s and Tillich’s Christology. Komulainen, An Emerging Cosmotheandric Religion? Raimon Panikkar'ʹs Pluralistic Theology of Religions, 132. 191 Panikkar, The Fullness of Man: A Christophany, 10. 192 Ibid. 193 Parappally, Emerging Trends in Indian Christology, 174.

Palestine and the people of Mediterranean world and of their colonies, the Incarnation, the advent of Son of God into concrete human history loses its central meaning.194

Panikkar’s Christology evokes questions about the meaning of the historical Jesus. What is the role of Jesus of Nazareth in a Christology with such a wide and universal scope?

Even though Panikkar does not wish, in principle, to dispense with the Christian conception according to which Christ is the “historical redeemer”, and Jesus of Nazareth has “a special and unique relationship with ... the Son” his texts impart that, methodologically, his Christology hardly attaches to Jesus of Nazareth. It is easy to find in his writings statements that minimise the value of history, or at least suggest that Jesus is of secondary importance.195 Komulainen opines that Panikkar’s Christology rests upon the following fundamental theological basis: the role of Jesus of Nazareth is confined to the background, and to providing a starting-‐‑point for Christian consciousness, whereas Christ holds the pivotal theological position.196

Panikkar displays no special interest in Jesus of Nazareth; the significance of the historical figure is reduced to a minimum in his vision. He may be denying that he was “escaping the scandal of the incarnation” or “ignoring ... historical facts.” In spite of all his rhetoric, it is difficult to avoid the feeling that, to a great extent, he has dispensed with Christian commitment to the historical figure of Jesus and eschews history.197 It is interesting to note his call for not only the “dekerygmatization” but also for the “dehistoricizing” of Christ. He writes, “Decades ago I called for the dekerygmatization of Christ in order to free him from any dogmatic proclamation. Today I would ask

194 J. B. Chethimattam, "ʺR. Panikkar'ʹs Approach to Christology,"ʺ The Indian Journal of Theology 23, no. 3&4 (July-‐‑Dec. 1974): 221. 195 Komulainen, An Emerging Cosmotheandric Religion? Raimon Panikkar'ʹs Pluralistic Theology of Religions, 126. 196 Ibid.This position is similar to the position of Rudolf Bultmann. Cf. Alister E. McGrath, The Making of Modern German Christology: 1750-‐‑1990, 2nd ed. (Leicester, UK/Grand Rapids, Michigan: APOLLOS/Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 154-‐‑173. 197 Jesus was certainly a historical person who lived in a specific period in history. “When I say that history is the modern myth of the West, I am not asserting that history is a “myth” in the all-‐‑too-‐‑common meaning of the word, but that historical events are seen as the horizon in which the real is manifested in such a way that the historical Jesus is identified with the real Jesus. If Jesus were not a historical personage, he would lose all his reality.” Christophany does not contest the historicity of Jesus. History must not be neglected; neither may Christ’s historical role be ignored. Christianity is a historical religion. If we abolish history, we destroy Christianity. Panikkar, The Fullness of Man: A Christophany, 157, 162, 168, 173.

whether we have to also dehistoricize him.”198 For him, as noted earlier the ‘quest of historical Jesus’ should be superseded by the efforts to grasp his very essence, which cannot be found in history or in our inner world.

Christology for him should take on a meta-‐‑theological dimension.199 The major theological problem of finding “an adequate theology of religion, capable of encompassing the whole range of man’s [sic] religious experience today” must be reflected in contemporary Christology.200 He tries to articulate who Christ is in the world religious context.201 It is one of these reasons to put Jesus Christ in the universal dimension that he ‘sidelines’ the historicity of Jesus.

For him the way contemporary Christianity presents Christ is a real stumbling block in the process of interaction with the world religions.202 Therefore, it is necessary to find experience and present the real Jesus Christ in a way that makes sense to other religions.203

5. An Evaluation

Panikkar’s Christology is one of the most contentious elements in his theology. His attempt to relate Christ to a wider phenomenon than Jesus has rendered him considerable criticism from many Christian theologians.

Eric Sharpe writes, An early and controversial work was Raymond Panikkar’s The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, an obscure and difficult book which stressed the hidden presence of ‘Christ’ – a cosmic principle terribly difficult to relate to Jesus of Nazareth – somewhere deep within Hinduism, or rather within the tradition of Advaita Vedanta. ... In the end, though,

198 Raimundo Panikkar, "ʺCan Theology Be Transcultural?,"ʺ in Pluralism and Oppression: Theology in World Perspective, ed. Paul F. Knitter, The Annual Publication of the College Theology Society 1988 (Lanham, New York: University Press of America, 1991), 8. 199 Menacherry, Christ: The Mystery in History. A Critical Study on the Christology of Raymond Panikkar, 46. 200 Panikkar, Salvation in Christ: Concreteness and Universality, the Supername, 72. 201 Harold G. Coward, "ʺPanikkar'ʹs Approach to Interreligious Dialogue,"ʺ Cross Currents 29, no. 2 (Summer 1979): 185-‐‑186. 202 Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. Towards an Ecumenical Christophany, ii, x. Cf. Panikkar, Salvation in Christ: Concreteness and Universality, the Supername, 78. 203 Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. Towards an Ecumenical Christophany, 165.

what Panikkar is saying in his book appears to be not greatly different from the ‘fulfilment’ idea of the liberal Protestants more than half a century earlier.204

Some authors belie any clear-‐‑cut categorization; among these is, Raimundo

Panikkar. In spite of Panikkar’s clarifications205 to the objections that he disjoins a universal Christ from the Jesus of history, his claims still remain ambiguous. His Christology [Christophany] does not entirely dispel the impression that the “Cosmotheandric” reality present in and common to every religious experience in whatever tradition – a reality Christians call “the Christ” remains loosely connected with the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth. Such an object of faith runs the risk of becoming an abstraction, little in keeping with the inclusivist christocentric paradigm.206 Both Chettimattam and Smet opine that Panikkar is a Christian theologian, who is genuinely uninterested in Jesus, but totally focussed on Christ, who is the junction between the Absolute and the relative. Chettimattam opines that to Panikkar Christ is more important than Jesus, and that Christ is Saviour because he is the central point that gives cohesion to the universe, that he is Alpha and Omega, the Pantocrator. Even so, Chettimattam is critical of Panikkar’s tendency to deny almost all value to the concrete and historical humanity of Christ as Jesus.207

Ahlstrand argues that “his theology is not at all ‘jesucentric’ because he makes a clear division between Jesus and Christ; the two must not be confounded. Jesus is important only to the extent that he reveals Christ.”208 When such fundamental questions are raised about the ‘finale’ of his project (which many agree is helpful): Christophany, we too raise certain objections about the way he finalizes his Christophany.

The problem how to relate Jesus to Christ and Christ to Jesus is a very real pastoral problem for the Christian church in India. It should be understood that Panikkar offers his Christophany in a context where Hinduism reigns. Does that mean he presents Christ in a Hindu mould? A Hindu sees the world full of holy men/women

204 Eric J. Sharpe, Not to Destroy But to Fulfil: The Contribution of J. N. Farquhar to Protestant Missionary Thought in India before 1914, Studia Missionalia Upsaliensia, V (Uppsala: Swedish Institute of Missionary Research, 1965), 125. 205 Panikkar, "ʺA Christophany for our times,"ʺ 3-‐‑21. 206 Dupuis, Towards a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism, 189. 207 Chethimattam, "ʺR. Panikkar'ʹs Approach to Christology,"ʺ 219-‐‑222. 208 Ahlstrand, Fundamental Openness. An Enquiry into Raimundo Panikkar'ʹs Theological Vision and its Presuppositions, 160.

sent by God. He/She fails to understand the Christian claim that the incarnation of Christ is unique. They ask: why should there be only one Avatar?

For Panikkar the Christian proclamation of the Gospel has taken a path, which has been very unsuccessful. He proposes an alternative to this that the missionary should start in the “Christ-‐‑consciousness”209 Ahlstrand maintains that speaking about incarnation in India leads the thoughts of the Hindu in the wrong direction, i.e., to the idea of an avatāra, an incarnation in history, unable to transcend history.210

We agree that the historical dimension of reference is not the basis but the crown of the proclamation of the Christian Gospel; the historical Jesus is not the point of departure but the eschaton. The skandalon in India is not that there was an incarnation, not that God humbled himself and became man, not that Logos became flesh, but that all flesh can and shall be God.211 Now this is adoptionism,212 which has been always rejected by the church as contrary to the Trinitarian assertion that Jesus Christ is eternally divine.

Then how do we do Christology in the Indian context? Christ should be incarnated in India but missionary proclamation should respect that the Indians are not primarily interested in Jesus of history, but in the living Christ who lives in the history of today through his Sacrament.213 For Panikkar Jesus belongs to the temporal. In the temporal sphere Jesus is and can be said to be “unique.” The temporal, however, is in Panikkar’s view not all of reality, and not even its most important dimension.214

Ahlstrand says, for Panikkar if Jesus reveals Christ, then Jesus is as important as Christ. But if Jesus obscures and conceals Christ, then Christ has the priority. Jesus points to Christ who points to the Father. Jesus is Christ in history, but that is important only for those who regard history as important. However, Panikkar moves further. He

209 Quoted in ibid., 162. 210 Ibid. 211 Ibid. 212 A Second century ‘heresy’ also known as dynamic monarchianism. Theodotus, a Byzantine leather merchant was the propounded of this teaching. According to this teaching, the pre-‐‑existence of Christ is denied, so therefore, his divinity too is in doubt. It further states that Jesus was tested by God; and after passing this test and upon His baptism; He was granted supernatural powers by God and adopted as the Son. As a reward for His great accomplishments and perfect character, Jesus was raised from the dead and adopted into the Godhead. 213 Ahlstrand, Fundamental Openness. An Enquiry into Raimundo Panikkar'ʹs Theological Vision and its Presuppositions, 162. 214 Ibid., 164.

relates his qualified view of the historical Jesus to the loaded concept of Jesus Christ as the Word of God.215

Christ eventually becomes so abstract in Panikkar’s thinking that he applies the philosophical term ‘the christic principle.’216 Christ is considered to be present in all authentic religions as their ‘principle of life.’217 Panikkar’s Christophany evokes questions about the meaning of the historical Jesus. What is the role of Jesus of Nazareth in such a Christology where the emphasis is on a universal aspect? In Panikkar’s thought Jesus does not exhaust the mystery of Christ, Christ surpasses mere Jesus.

In principle, Panikkar does not dispense with the ‘historical redeemer’ but his texts impart that, methodologically, his Christology hardly attaches to Jesus of Nazareth. There are numerous statements in his writings that minimize the value of history, or at least suggest that Jesus is of secondary importance. He wrote “... Jesus, the Son of Mary, is an historical figure. ... But Christ is not exhausted in Jesus, so to speak. And Christ is more than history.”218

It appears that his Christology rests upon the following fundamental theological basis: the role of Jesus of Nazareth is confined to the background, and to providing a starting-‐‑point for Christian consciousness, whereas Christ holds the pivotal theological position.219 In spite of all of this, Panikkar’s clarifications still finds himself on the wrong side of minimizing/ignoring the historical facts or ‘escaping the scandal of the incarnation.’ It also displays almost exclusive cosmological-‐‑ontological traits.220 Hence one may conclude that Panikkar’s Christophany does not accentuate Jesus of Nazareth. It is rather to be found on the cosmological and ontological horizon, for the christic principle infiltrates all religions and the whole of reality, and is manifested in all being.221

For Panikkar Christ is a category, which surpasses Jesus of Nazareth. His argument that Christology cannot be confined to Jesus of Nazareth rests on his

215 Ibid. 216 Raimundo Panikkar, "ʺThe Jordan, the Tiber, and the Ganges: Three Kairological Moments of Christic Self-‐‑Consciousness,"ʺ in The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Towards a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, ed. John Hick and Paul F. Knitter(London: SCM Press Ltd, 1987), 105, 112. 217 Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. Towards an Ecumenical Christophany, 20. 218 Panikkar, "ʺInstead of a Foreword: An Open Letter,"ʺ xii. 219 Komulainen finds Panikkar’s position in line with Bultmann, and Tillich’s. Komulainen, An Emerging Cosmotheandric Religion? Raimon Panikkar'ʹs Pluralistic Theology of Religions, 126. 220 Ibid. 221 Ibid.

personalist222 arguments whereby he distinguishes between the personal identification223 of Jesus of Nazareth and the personal identity224 of Christ. For Panikkar the ‘myth of history’ has led to a confinement of Christology only to the Incarnation of Christ. Such a position for him is problematic. For him Christ is beyond the spatio-‐‑temporal spheres of this world. He says,

No Christian will say that the living Christ of faith is only a being of the past and no Christian will affirm either, on the other hand, that when he receives Christ in the Eucharist, for instance, that he is eating the proteins of Jesus of Nazareth who was walking in Palestine twenty centuries ago.225

In this program he locates the significance of Christ in the field of personal

identity. Thus, he constructs a model where Jesus of Nazareth as a historical personality has only marginal significance.

DeSmet observes that Panikkar’s Hindu-‐‑Christian theology is an attempt to respond to the challenge to Christianity of a-‐‑historical Hinduism. However, in seeking to ease the shock of a historical event of transcendent value, has not Panikkar himself relativized the historical?226

Does Panikkar sidelines the historical Jesus? The answer may be a difficult one. In his project of presenting Christ as the bridge between different religious traditions especially Hinduism he offers a viable solution but we feel that he ends up sidelining the historical Jesus and makes him a ‘christic principle,’ a ‘symbol’ only. It was noted

222 Personalism posits ultimate reality and value in personhood — human as well as divine. It emphasizes the significance, uniqueness and inviolability of the person, as well as the person'ʹs essentially relational or communitarian dimension. The title “personalism” can therefore legitimately be applied to any school of thought that focuses on the reality of persons and their unique status among beings in general, and personalists believe that the human person should be the ontological and epistemological starting point of philosophical reflection. 223 It is based on empirical data, on the external signs of the person in question, thus not touching the person proper. In Christology this means that Christ is only seen as a great man of history. Komulainen, An Emerging Cosmotheandric Religion? Raimon Panikkar'ʹs Pluralistic Theology of Religions, 140. Cf. Panikkar, "ʺThe Meaning of Christ'ʹs Name in the Universal Economy of Salvation,"ʺ 255-‐‑256. 224 For Panikkar it means the nucleus of a human being that is involved in personal relationships. Komulainen, An Emerging Cosmotheandric Religion? Raimon Panikkar'ʹs Pluralistic Theology of Religions, 141. 225 Panikkar, "ʺThe Meaning of Christ'ʹs Name in the Universal Economy of Salvation,"ʺ 242. 226 Dupuis, Jesus Christ at the Encounter of World Religions, 188.

earlier that Panikkar did operate within the advaitic tradition.227 MacPherson rightly points out that,

Because he is wrestling with experiential systems, especially the Advaita Vedanta system and the term cosmotheandrism, the concept of history shifts from a Western to an Eastern understanding. Since this shift is not always explicit, Panikkar is often misunderstood.228 Therefore, it is important we look briefly into what advaita Vedanta is and how it

continues to be a major source of doing Christology in the Indian context.

5.1. Advaita Vedanta and its contribution towards Indian Christology

Advaita Vedanta is probably the Indian system that is most frequently considered for theological purposes, has usually been presented as a monistic, mystical, or philosophical system which raises for the theologian the issue of non-‐‑dualism, the impersonality of the divine reality of the world etc.

That brings us to the question: what is Advaita Vedanta? According to the Upanishads, Advaita philosophy can be grasped in four mahavakyas (great sayings). One of the four mahavakyas points to the fact of the ultimate and essential oneness of individual self and of Supreme Self, and the Reality behind both being, Brahman. Within the Advaita tradition, two strands about Brahman are evident: Nirguna Brahman, the sublime divine reality so transcendent that it stands beyond all attributes, and Saguna Brahman, a concept of the divine which includes attributes similar to the personal God of monotheism.229 The founding proponent of Advaita, Sri Shankaracharya (788-‐‑820 CE), commonly known as Sankara, adopts the first position. Despite the fact that Hinduism espouses myriads of gods and goddesses, Nirguna Brahman has become the dominant Hindu concept of ultimate reality, of the truly divine.230

227 His understanding of person is related to the Advaitic ātman which is dynamic and extensive, transcending the universe and also despite its infiniteness, ātman is also the center of everything. Caution should be maintained here because it is also noted that Panikkar’s vision and the classical Advaita Vedanta differs especially where criticizes absolute monism and stresses pluralism. Komulainen, An Emerging Cosmotheandric Religion? Raimon Panikkar'ʹs Pluralistic Theology of Religions, 144. 228 MacPherson, A Critical Reading of the Development of Raimon Panikkar'ʹs Thought on the Trinity, 109. 229 Moses P. P. Penumaka, "ʺLuther and Shankara: Two Ways of Salvation in the Indian Context,"ʺ Dialog: A Journal of Theology 45, no. 3 (Fall 2006): 252-‐‑253. 230 Ibid.

It should be considered that there are other Vedantas, Visistadvaita Vedanta of Ramanuja and Dvaita Vedanta of Madhva.231 It is, however, a consequence of the profundity and intellectual vigour of Sankara that Vedanta in general is viewed mostly according to his mode. And there are reasons to believe that Advaita Vedanta has been the dominant school of Hindu thought since the time of Sankara.232 It won’t be an exaggeration to say that ‘Sankara'ʹs influence on Hindu metaphysical thought is perhaps even greater than that of St. Thomas Aquinas on Roman Catholic systematic theology.’233 In this mode of thought, the bhakti experience and expression of the twoness is regarded ultimately as inferior to the experience of non-‐‑duality, which by its very nature and demand cannot contain or be contained in any forms whatsoever. In the final analysis, as well as experience, either there is a radical negation of all forms, in uttering neti, neti, or there is an affirmation—essentially more congenial to the Hindu mind—of existence (sat) not as this or that but as such, consciousness (cit) not of any content but turned upon itself, experience (ananda) not of anything other but of itself wrapped in its own delight.234

The real precursor of Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta is the earliest systematic treatment of the principle thesis of the Upanishads that “Brahman or the Absolute is alone real and all else is maya or appearance” contained in Gaudapada’s commentary on Mandukya Upanishad.235 Etymologically, a-‐‑dvaita means the negation of all duality. Metaphysically Advaita means non-‐‑duality. It is the philosophy of absolute non-‐‑dualism as it recognizes that only Brahman, the pure consciousness, as real.

When one studies Sankara’s Advaita philosophy, there is no eternal room for personal history, personal struggles, pain or sorrow, etc. The underside of Advaita philosophy is that it declares our victimage to injustice or our marginalization due to caste as less than fully real, as illusory. The world and its finite history appear to exist only to the ignorant, to those who have not attained self-‐‑realization. Such unrealized souls have not yet transcended the duality of subject and object, individual and world, devotee and God. They have not yet attained to the realization of the non-‐‑duality of

231 These are philosophically more hospitable to the path of bhakti. 232 Bradley Malkovsky, "ʺAdvaita Vedanta and Christian Faith,"ʺ Journal of Ecumenical Studies 36, no. 3-‐‑4 (Summer-‐‑Fall 1999): 399. 233 Ibid. 234 Ravi Ravindra, "ʺUniqueness and oneness in the lion'ʹs roar: Vedanta and Sikh heritage,"ʺ Dialogue & Alliance 5, no. 3 (Fall 1991): 14. 235 Ramakant A. Sinari, The Structure of Indian Thought (Springfield: Charles C. Thomas Publishers, 1970), 105.

(nirguna) Brahman, the sole Being (sat ) which is also pure and changeless consciousness (cit ). Brahman is ultimately real. Our finite and ephemeral world is an illusory appearance; the individual soul (jiva) is Brahman alone, not other.236 Even Arvind points out that “Reality is thus reduced to the Spirit in Advaita Vedanta.”237 Plurality may be allowed by a Vedantist, but only at a lower level of relative truth, of appearance, and of ignorance. Vedanta thus offers a classic case of ecumenism by condescension: the other is also right—after all as the Rig Veda (1.164.46) says, "ʺReality is one; the wise speak of it in many ways"ʺ—but as long as the other wishes to be distinct, he declares his ignorance. In spite of the saying of the Rig Veda no Vedantist philosopher would consider anybody wise unless he spoke of reality only in one way! Not Gautama the Buddha, nor Jesus the Christ, nor Guru Nanak.238 Distinctions are just not considered a mark of high vision, and are mere appearances.

Another area that needs to be touched upon and which is so crucial for our research is that: Vedanta, and in particular Advaita Vedanta, by assuming a vantage point which in fact is not in the experience of the vast majority of Vedantists, who cannot be assumed to be the perfect adhikaris of the guhyatam rahasyam (or rahasyasya rahasyam, the most esoteric truth), relegates the whole realm of space-‐‑time, particularity, uniqueness, and history to a lower level, and somehow manages to denigrate it in social practice. Also, from a Vedantist point of view, there cannot be any real point to the distinct manifestations of reality (which is nothing but Brahman) because they are mere variations.239 Question can be raised to such a position: Is it an exquisite Chinese vase the same as a lump of clay? Perhaps this devaluation of history is the greatest point of distinction of Vedanta from the Abrahamic tradition.240

The normal Advaitic view of Christian faith is fairly uniform and can be easily summed up. This view has been much influenced by Swami Vivekananda. He gave high importance to devotional spirituality, but made all religious experience, including

236 Penumaka, "ʺLuther and Shankara: Two Ways of Salvation in the Indian Context,"ʺ 261. 237 Arvind Sharma, "ʺWho Speaks for Hinduism? A Perspective from Advaita Vedanta,"ʺ in Journal of the American Academy of Religion (December 2000), 755. 238 Ravindra, "ʺUniqueness and oneness in the lion'ʹs roar: Vedanta and Sikh heritage,"ʺ 13. 239 In an analogy to be found in the Chandogya Upanishad (6.1.4) and much quoted and admired by the Vedantists, it is said that clay alone is real, while its modifications are only names arising from speech. In the hands of someone without sensitivity to beauty, this is bound to lead to a facile and destructive dismissal of all art, uniqueness, and individuality. 240 Also from Sikhism. Cf. Ravindra, "ʺUniqueness and oneness in the lion'ʹs roar: Vedanta and Sikh heritage,"ʺ 19.

that of Christians, ultimately subordinate to the supreme intuition of non-‐‑duality. For him, all religions find their fulfilment in Advaita.241

Advaitins normally espouse an acosmic monism, it is not surprising that they view Christianity as an inferior religion because of its orientation to a personal God at work in creation and because of the primacy it gives to love over enlightenment.242 It is also noted that it is not very uncommon for advaitins to regard talk of a personal God as an anthropomorphic projection. One also observe that from the perspective of mainstream Advaita, when Christians speak of the centrality of the incarnation and resurrection of Christ for human salvation, when hope is placed in the eschatological consummation of the world brought about in accord with a divine plan, they reveal that they are trapped on the lower level of awareness (vyavahāra-‐‑avasthā) in which distinctions are perceived and trusted as real.243 For them Christians need to transcend the distinction of creator and creature, God and world, self and other and realize the infinite impersonal Brahman, which is without distinction and relation. There is also a widespread conviction among educated Hindus that whatever truth exists in other religions is already present in Hinduism in one form or another, since Hinduism witnesses to an absolute eternal truth that is unchanging. A revelation that claims to take place through the medium of history cannot really add anything substantially new to the changeless truths of human and divine nature.244

From the Christian point of view among the many great teachers of Advaita, Sankara is one of the most familiar to Christian theologians seeking to grasp the meaning and significance of Hindu teaching on non-‐‑duality for Christian theology and spirituality.245 Now, there is something common to Vivekananda, Gandhi, Radhakrishnan and Raimundo Panikkar’s view about Jesus Christ: advaitic Christ. An Advaitic Christ246 raises fundamental questions about the historicity of the person of Jesus Christ. There are some Indian theologians who maintain that in an advaitic

241 Bradley Malkovsky, "ʺSwami Vivekananda and Bede Griffiths on Religious Pluralism: Hindu and Christian Approaches to Truth,"ʺ Horizons 25, no. 2 (Fall 1998): 217-‐‑237. 242 Malkovsky, "ʺAdvaita Vedanta and Christian Faith,"ʺ 404. 243 Ibid., 405. 244 Ibid., 421. 245 According to Helbfass the first reference by a Christian theologian to Sankara is in Robert de Nobili’s Informatio de quibusdam moribus nationis indicae (1613). Cf. Wilhelm Halbfass, India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding (Albany, New York: State University of New York, 1988), 40. 246 For a representative work on Advaitic Christology refer to K. P. Aleaz, "ʺIndian Jesus,"ʺ in Indian Theological Case Studies, ed. Henry Wilson(Madurai: The Tamil Nadu Theological Seminary, 1986), 13-‐‑15;

position there is no dualism of historical Jesus and Christ of faith because there is space for both. However, our evaluation of some of these positions points to the fact that that is not the case always.

Jeremiah rightly points why advaitic Christ can lead to a Christ ‘de-‐‑historicized’ ‘unknown’ to the Gospel traditions. He says,

The Christian God is a personal God and not a state of being or consciousness like Brahman conceptualized by Sankara. The Abrahamic religions believe in a God, who historically acts in the human life and participates in their life, leading them on in their earthly sojourn. At the deep structural level there is incompatibility between these notions.247

Sara Grant also maintains that “... biblical tradition and Christian faith are rooted in history, and their historical character is essential to their identity, Hinduism has no such preoccupation with history.”248

Further stating the importance of historical Jesus in the seemingly sidelining context of Advaita Vedanta, Jeremiah states,

Conceptualising Jesus as Jiva-‐‑atman is very limited in its scope. In fact, in this theming the historicity of Jesus has seemingly no place as it does not has a place for the phenomenal reality. Jesus is just a faint reflection of the ultimate being, and needs no attention, but only when he becomes one with Brahman. His divinity is universalized at the expense of his important humanity (transcendental preferred over phenomenal world). .... If we stand by the notion that the sensory perception binds down a person, jiva, in this ignorant world of illusion, all that Gospel narratives of Jesus'ʹ ministry becomes meaningless. Jesus did actively participate in experiencing the Kingdom of God on this earth, he did not try to consider this world as maya or illusion and take a path of renunciation and negation. In this light, the effort to use the Brahman-‐‑Atman conceptual framework to understand God-‐‑Jesus relationship seriously undermines and robs the notion of salvation and liberation Jesus advocated.249

K. P. Aleaz, Jesus in Neo-‐‑Vedanta: A Meeting of Hinduism and Christianity, World Religions Relationship Series, 002 (New Delhi: Kant Publications, 1995); K. P. Aleaz, An Indian Jesus from Sankara'ʹs Thought (Calcutta: Punthi Pustak, 1997); K. P. Aleaz, "ʺAn Indian Understanding of Jesus,"ʺ Asia Journal of Theology 12, no. 1 (April 1998): 118-‐‑138. 247 Anderson Jeremiah, "ʺInculturation: A Subaltern Critique of K. P. Aleaz'ʹs "ʺIndian Christian Vedanta."ʺ,"ʺ Asia Journal of Theology 21, no. 2 (2007): 405. 248 Quoted in Malkovsky, "ʺAdvaita Vedanta and Christian Faith,"ʺ 419. 249 Jeremiah, "ʺInculturation: A Subaltern Critique of K. P. Aleaz'ʹs "ʺIndian Christian Vedanta."ʺ,"ʺ 405.

Conclusion

An attempt was made in this article to look into the Christological formulations of a prominent Hindu-‐‑Christian theologian: Raimundo Panikkar. In relating the Hindu and Christian traditions he has been a prominent figure as a bridge-‐‑maker. We have seen how his Christological ideas arose out of his grappling with the relationship between the two living religious traditions: Christianity and Hinduism. In his attempt to make Christ relevant to the Indian mind he took the religio-‐‑philosophical traditions of India seriously. For him the important aspect of Christology is not the issue of the philosophical and theological problems connected with the affirmation of Jesus of Nazareth, true God and true human, but encountering him as true God and true human. In his attempt to present Christ to the Indian mind he tries to overcome the limitations of the understanding of Christ in the historical category, because he thinks historical category is only one of the aspects of reality not the whole. Agreed, historical categories are only one of the aspects of reality but that doesn’t warrant a Christian theologian to sideline the historicity of Jesus and its relevance to our present context. As noted during our study Panikkar often swings between historical and trans-‐‑historical. He wants to hold on to both which is appreciated but to make Christ relevant to the Hindu mind he ends up sidelining the historical Jesus.

Also observed earlier the influence of Hindu philosophical tradition – advaita Vedanta is very prominent on Panikkar. There are some who would argue that he was not influenced by Vedanta philosophy in his Christological formulations. As noted earlier there are overwhelming evidences shown by panikkarian theologians that he was influenced by advaita Vedanta and he made use of it in his Christological arguments.250 It is also noted, that extensive reliance on advaita Vedanta too played a major role in the sidelining of the historical relevance of Jesus Christ in the Indian context.

One also observes that some have misunderstood and misrepresented Panikkar’s ideas. Understood rightly he stands as the bridge between the two religious traditions each of which has its own ethos and cannot be read through alien framework or interchange of glasses. Each has to be understood under its own terms and only analogy and parallelism could be used to salvage what is of relevance for one'ʹs own tradition. The moot question however is: could we get rid of the bridge after we have made the

250 Cf. Footnote no. 154.

crossing? Perhaps, yes, and perhaps, no, depending on what one wants to do in the process of finding a relevant Indian Christology.

"ʺRaimon Panikkar"ʺ http://www.raimonpanikkar.org/ (accessed November 30, 2010). Ahlstrand, Kajsa. Fundamental Openness. An Enquiry into Raimundo Panikkar'ʹs Theological

Vision and its Presuppositions Studia Missionalia Upsaliensia LVII. Uppsala: Uppsala University, 1993.

Aleaz, K. P. "ʺIndian Jesus."ʺ In Indian Theological Case Studies, edited by Henry Wilson,

13-‐‑15. Madurai: The Tamil Nadu Theological Seminary, 1986. Aleaz, K. P. Jesus in Neo-‐‑Vedanta: A Meeting of Hinduism and Christianity World Religions

Relationship Series, 002. New Delhi: Kant Publications, 1995. Aleaz, K. P. An Indian Jesus from Sankara'ʹs Thought. Calcutta: Punthi Pustak, 1997. Aleaz, K. P. "ʺAn Indian Understanding of Jesus."ʺ Asia Journal of Theology 12, no. 1 (April

1998): 118-‐‑138. Boyd, Robin H. S. India and the Latin Captivity of the Church. The Cultural Context of the

Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Boyd, Robin H. S. Kristadvaita: A Theology for India. Madras: CLS, 1977. Boyd, Robin H. S. An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology. New Delhi: ISPCK, 1994. Chethimattam, J. B. "ʺR. Panikkar'ʹs Approach to Christology."ʺ The Indian Journal of

Theology 23, no. 3&4 (July-‐‑Dec. 1974): 219-‐‑222. Cousins, Ewert H. "ʺPanikkar'ʹs Advaitic Trinitarianism."ʺ In The Intercultural Challenge of

Raimon Panikkar, edited by Joseph Prabhu, 119-‐‑130. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1996.

Coward, Harold G. "ʺPanikkar'ʹs Approach to Interreligious Dialogue."ʺ Cross Currents 29,

no. 2 (Summer 1979): 183-‐‑189, 192. D'ʹSa, Francis X. "ʺThe Advaita Principle of Raimon Panikkar and Trinty."ʺ In Negotiating

Borders: Theological Explorations in the Global Era. Essays in Honour of Prof. Felix

Wilfred, edited by Patrick Gnanapragasam and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, 158-‐‑166. Delhi: ISPCK, 2008.

D'ʹSa, Francis X. "ʺGlossary of Panikkarian Ex-‐‑Pressions."ʺ In Raimon Panikkar: Being

Beyond Borders; A Commemorative Volume, edited by Johnson J. Puthenpurackal, ACPI Special Series 2, 630-‐‑646. Bangalore & Eluru: ATC & ACPI, 2012.

D'ʹSa, Francis X. "ʺRelevance of Raimon Panikkar: A Preview of His Thought."ʺ In Raimon

Panikkar: Being Beyond Borders; A Commemorative Volume, edited by Johnson J. Puthenpurackal, ACPI Special Series 2, 40-‐‑58. Bangalore & Eluru: ATC & ACPI, 2012.

Dupuis, Jacques. Jesus Christ at the Encounter of World Religions Faith Meets Faith Series.

Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1991. Dupuis, Jacques. Towards a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. 2nd ed. Maryknoll,

New York: Orbis Books, 1998. George, Samuel. The Historical Particularity of Jesus: A Dialogue with the Hindu View of

History. Kolkata, India: Punthi Pustak, 2014. George, Samuel. "ʺThe Emergence of Christology in the Early Church: a Methodological

Survey with Particular Reference to the Anti-‐‑Heretical Polemics of Irenaeus of Lyons."ʺ Asia Journal of Theology 24, no. 2 (October 2010): 219-‐‑253.

Griffiths, Bede. Christian Ashram: Essays towards a Hindu-‐‑Christian Dialogue. London:

Darton, Longman & Todd, 1966. Grimes, William, "ʺRaimon Panikkar, Catholic Theologian, Is Dead at 91"ʺ

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/us/05panikkar.html?_r=1 (accessed September 5, 2010).

Halbfass, Wilhelm. India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding. Albany, New York:

State University of New York, 1988. Jeremiah, Anderson. "ʺInculturation: A Subaltern Critique of K. P. Aleaz'ʹs "ʺIndian

Christian Vedanta."ʺ."ʺ Asia Journal of Theology 21, no. 2 (2007): 398-‐‑411. Komulainen, Jyri. An Emerging Cosmotheandric Religion? Raimon Panikkar'ʹs Pluralistic

Theology of Religions. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 2003.

MacPherson, Camilia Gangasingh. A Critical Reading of the Development of Raimon

Panikkar'ʹs Thought on the Trinity. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1996.

Malkovsky, Bradley. "ʺSwami Vivekananda and Bede Griffiths on Religious Pluralism:

Hindu and Christian Approaches to Truth."ʺ Horizons 25, no. 2 (Fall 1998): 217-‐‑237.

Malkovsky, Bradley. "ʺAdvaita Vedanta and Christian Faith."ʺ Journal of Ecumenical

Studies 36, no. 3-‐‑4 (Summer-‐‑Fall 1999): 397-‐‑422. Maniquet, Scott, "ʺRaimon Panikkar, 'ʹtheologian, mystic, priest and poet'ʹ dies"ʺ

http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/09/02/raimon-‐‑panikkar-‐‑%E2%80%98theologian-‐‑mystic-‐‑priest-‐‑and-‐‑poet%E2%80%99-‐‑dies/ (accessed September 4, 2010).

Mattathilanickel, Pradeep. "ʺCosmotheandric Religion: Panikkar'ʹs Emerging

Philosophy."ʺ In Raimon Panikkar: Being Beyond Borders; A Commemorative Volume, edited by Johnson J. Puthenpurackal, ACPI Special Series 2, 526-‐‑544. Bangalore & Eluru: ATC & ACPI, 2012.

McGrath, Alister E. The Making of Modern German Christology: 1750-‐‑1990. 2nd ed.

Leicester, UK/Grand Rapids, Michigan: APOLLOS/Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.

Menacherry, Cheriyan. Christ: The Mystery in History. A Critical Study on the Christology

of Raymond Panikkar. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1996. Mitra, Kana. Catholicism-‐‑Hinduism. Vedantic Investigation of Raimundo Panikkar'ʹs Attempt

at Bridge Building. Lanham: University Press of America, 1987. Mookenthottam, Antony. Indian Theological Tendencies: Approaches and Problems for

Further Research as Seen in the Works of Some Leading Indian Theologians. Berne, Switzerland: Peter Lang, 1978.

Mookenthottam, Antony. Towards a Theology in the Indian Context. Madras: CLS, 1980. Panikkar, Raimon. "ʺThe Meaning of Christ'ʹs Name in the Universal Economy of

Salvation."ʺ In Service and Salvation (Nagpur Theological Conference on

Evangelization), edited by Joseph Pathrapankal, 235-‐‑263. Bangalore: Theological Publication of India, 1973.

Panikkar, Raimon. A Dwelling Place for Wisdom. Kentucky: Westminster John Knox

Press, 1993. Panikkar, Raimon. The Cosmotheandric Experience: Emerging Religious Consciousness. First

Indian Edition ed., Edited by Scott Eastham. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, 1998.

Panikkar, Raimon. The Fullness of Man: A Christophany. Translated by Alfred DiLascia.

Delhi: ISPCK, 2006. Panikkar, Raimon. The Rhythm of Being: The Gifford Lectures. Maryknoll, New York:

Orbis Books, 2010. Panikkar, Raimon. "ʺA Christophany for our times."ʺ Theology Digest 39, no. 1 (Spring

1992): 3-‐‑21. Panikkar, Raimundo. "ʺThe Relation of Christians to their Non-‐‑Christian Surroundings."ʺ

In Christian Revelation and World Religions, edited by Josef Neuner. London: Burns & Oates, 1967.

Panikkar, Raimundo. The Trinity and World Religions. Icon-‐‑Person-‐‑Mystery Inter-‐‑Religious

Dialogue Series, No. 4. Bangalore/Madras: CISRS/CLS, 1970. Panikkar, Raimundo. "ʺThe Meaning of Christ'ʹs Name in the Universal Economy of

Salvation."ʺ In Evangelization, Dialogue and Development, edited by M. Dhavamony, 195-‐‑218. Rome: Documenta Missionalia, 1972.

Panikkar, Raimundo. Salvation in Christ: Concreteness and Universality, the Supername

Inauguration Lecture at the Ecumenical Institute of Advanced Theological Study. Tantur, Jerusalem, 1972.

Panikkar, Raimundo. Worship and Secular Man: An essay on the Liturgical Nature of Man,

considering Secularization as a Major Phenomenon of our time and Worship as an apparent fact of all times; A Study towards an integral Anthropology. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1973.

Panikkar, Raimundo. Myth, Faith and Hermeneutics. Cross-‐‑Cultural Studies. New York: Paulist Press, 1979.

Panikkar, Raimundo. The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man, Icon-‐‑Person-‐‑Mystery.

London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1979. Panikkar, Raimundo. "ʺIndian Theology: A Theological Mutation."ʺ In Theologizing in

India. Selection of Papers presented at the Seminar held in Poona on October 26-‐‑30, 1978, edited by M. Amaladoss, T. K. John and G. Gispert-‐‑Sauch, 23-‐‑42. Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1981.

Panikkar, Raimundo. The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. Towards an Ecumenical

Christophany. Revised and enlarged ed. Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 1982.

Panikkar, Raimundo. "ʺInstead of a Foreword: An Open Letter."ʺ In Theological Approach

and Understanding of Religion. Jean Danielou and Raimundo Panikkar: A Study in Contrast, V-‐‑XIV. Bangalore: Kristu Jyoti College, 1987.

Panikkar, Raimundo. "ʺThe Invisible Harmony: A Universal Theory of Religion or a

Cosmic Confidence in Reality?"ʺ In Towards a Universal Theology of Religions, edited by Leonard Swidler, 118-‐‑153. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1987.

Panikkar, Raimundo. "ʺThe Jordan, the Tiber, and the Ganges: Three Kairological

Moments of Christic Self-‐‑Consciousness."ʺ In The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Towards a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, edited by John Hick and Paul F. Knitter, 89-‐‑116. London: SCM Press Ltd, 1987.

Panikkar, Raimundo. "ʺThe Christian Challenge for the Third Millennium."ʺ In Christian

Mission and Interreligious Dialogue, edited by Paul Mojzes and Leonard Swidler, Religions in Dialogue 4, 113-‐‑125. Lewiston/Qwenston/Lampster: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1990.

Panikkar, Raimundo. "ʺCan Theology Be Transcultural?"ʺ In Pluralism and Oppression:

Theology in World Perspective, edited by Paul F. Knitter, The Annual Publication of the College Theology Society 1988, Vol. 34, 3-‐‑22. Lanham, New York: University Press of America, 1991.

Panikkar, Raimundo. "ʺThe New Role of Christian Universities in Asia."ʺ In Asian Cultural

Studies, International Christian University Publications III A, 169-‐‑185. Mitaka,

Tokyo: International Christian University, Institute of Asian Cultural Studies, 1993.

Panikkar, Raimundo. "ʺPresent-‐‑Day University Education and World Cultures."ʺ In Asian

Cultural Studies, International Christian University Publications III A, 187-‐‑198. Mitaka, Tokyo: International Christian University, Institute of Asian Cultural Studies, 1993.

Panikkar, Raimundo. "ʺĪsvara and Christ as a Philosophical Problem."ʺ Religion and

Society VI, no. 3 (October 1959): 8-‐‑16. Panikkar, Raimundo. "ʺFaith and Belief: On the Multi-‐‑Religious Experience."ʺ Anglican

Theological Review 53, no. 4 (October 1971): 219-‐‑237. Panikkar, Raimundo. "ʺThe Silence of the Word: Non-‐‑Dualistic Polarities."ʺ Cross Currents

24, no. 2 (Summer -‐‑ Fall, 1974): 154-‐‑171. Panikkar, Raymond. Kerygma und Indien zur heilsgeschichtlichen Begengung mit Indien.

Hamburg: Bergstedt, 1967. Panthanmackel, George. "ʺThe Notion of Reality: The Vision of Reality."ʺ In Raimon

Panikkar: Being Beyond Borders; A Commemorative Volume, edited by Johnson J. Puthenpurackal, 91-‐‑107. Bangalore & Eluru: ATC & ACPI,, 2012.

Parappally, Jacob. Emerging Trends in Indian Christology. Bangalore: IIS Publications,

1995. Parappally, Jacob. "ʺFrom Christology to Christophany: Panikkar'ʹs Liberating Vision of

Christ."ʺ In Raimon Panikkar: Being Beyond Borders; A Commemorative Volume, edited by Johnson J. Puthenpurackal, ACPI Special Series 2, 565-‐‑578. Bangalore & Eluru: ATC & ACPI, 2012.

Penumaka, Moses P. P. "ʺLuther and Shankara: Two Ways of Salvation in the Indian

Context."ʺ Dialog: A Journal of Theology 45, no. 3 (Fall 2006): 252-‐‑262. Prabhu, Joseph. "ʺLost in Translation: Panikkar'ʹs Intercultural Odyssey."ʺ In The

Intercultural Challenge of Raimon Panikkar, edited by Joseph Prabhu, 1-‐‑21. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1996.

Prabhu, Joseph, "ʺRaimon Panikkar, 'ʹapostle of inter-‐‑faith dialogue,'ʹ dies"ʺ http://ncronline.org/news/spirituality/raimon-‐‑panikkar-‐‑apostle-‐‑inter-‐‑faith-‐‑dialogue-‐‑dies (accessed November 30, 2010).

Ravindra, Ravi. "ʺUniqueness and oneness in the lion'ʹs roar: Vedanta and Sikh heritage."ʺ

Dialogue & Alliance 5, no. 3 (Fall 1991): 10-‐‑20. Selvanayagam, Israel. "ʺRevisiting The Unknown Christ of Hinduism: A Tribute to

Raymundo Panikkar."ʺ Gurukul Journal of Theological Studies XXI, no. 2 (June 2010): 61-‐‑70.

Sharma, Arvind. "ʺWho Speaks for Hinduism? A Perspective from Advaita Vedanta."ʺ In

Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 68, 751-‐‑759, December 2000. Sharpe, Eric J. Not to Destroy But to Fulfil: The Contribution of J. N. Farquhar to Protestant

Missionary Thought in India before 1914 Studia Missionalia Upsaliensia, V. Uppsala: Swedish Institute of Missionary Research, 1965.

Sinari, Ramakant A. The Structure of Indian Thought. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas

Publishers, 1970.

'Unknown Christ': Jesus Christ in the writings of Raimundo Panikkar

Documents

Transcript of 'Unknown Christ': Jesus Christ in the writings of Raimundo Panikkar