1 0 S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 8 - 2 Fa l l 2 0 2 2 sonal notes as an estranged presence in this world, in which he felt he had no preassigned role or aim. He had to make a choice about who to be and what to do, and the choice appears to have been beyond his capacity. 5 With No Home Panikkar’s efforts to take control of his life and own narrative are well known. He changed his name and last name and built his own story by means of admirable remarks, such as, “I am the son of a Hindu Indian father,” or “I left Europe as a Christian.” These remarks have become the irreplaceable elements of any biographical sketch of his life as well as prisms to penetrate his thoughts. These efforts were deliberated and constant during his entire existence. Self-assertion was an indisputable principle of his life. Panikkar managed to become his own person. In the words of Salman Rushdie (1992, 439), “those who do not have power over the story of their lives, power to retell it, rethink it, deconstruct it, joke about it, and change it as times changes, truly are powerless because they cannot think new thoughts.” From Varanasi, Panikkar wrote to his friend Enrico Castelli: “I try to be free, with the true freedom that has now passed the myths and objectifications.” Then he continued: “even those of God as ‘substance’ apart” (Bielawski 2012, 272) [15]. For Panikkar, self-determination was the line of resistance against institutions that come with their assigned identity; it was the antidote to prefabricated religious myths and objectifications, including those of God as substance apart from the world. All this is well known to Panikkar’s scholars. Fragments reveals an unexpected side of these efforts: Panikkar did not give any thought to this unique activity. No reference to this work of self-determination can be found in his personal notes, apart from one: “every man must create the work of art that is himself” (Panikkar 2018a, 123). What a reader can find in his personal notes, instead, are traces of his persistent sense of estrangement from people, social contexts, and even his family (Panikkar 2018a, 148, 174–75, 182). Several times he wrote that he had no friends (47, 49, 50, 191). The estrangement from people and social contexts, however, was propaedeutic to a much deeper form of estrangement: Panikkar’s self-perception as a person different from most people. “De Lubac, Abhisikta, (Bede a little less)… all are conscious of playing a role… I have no role” (Panikkar 2018a, 211). Here the list of names is probably more relevant than the concepts. De Lubac, Abhishiktananda, and Bede Griffiths are not exactly the names that come to mind when one thinks of people playing roles within the Roman Catholic Church and society at large. These three priests were courageous men, at the intellectual, spiritual, and geographic borders of their worlds. They paid high personal, and ecclesial prices for their intellectual and spiritual search beyond the mainstream. All of them, priests and members of religious orders, believed they were following God’s will. Yet, Panikkar distanced himself from these people, positioning himself as different from them because he was with no role. This is not the occasion to discuss whether Panikkar’s comparison was realistic or delusional; the point is the sense of estrangement he felt even toward people he knew, respected, and with whom he was friends. Finally, Fragments signals Panikkar’s estrangement from ordinary life. “I feel strong and powerful in the face of the world of ideas, in its most profound and realistic sense… but in the face of everyday things, especially everything that involves decision and organization, I am completely disoriented” (Panikkar 2018a, 230–31). Panikkar saw himself as someone unsuitable for the life of ordinary, mortal people because he was attracted by “the Presence of God” (Panikkar 2018a, 281). This estrangement from ordinary life, in Panikkar’s opinion, is the result of “mystical awareness” [16]. This estrangement, however, has consequences: the most important is a certain indifference to concrete matters such as money, career, institutions, and conventions (Panikkar 2018a, 51). Panikkar revealed he had a problem in coping with social environments, people, and ordinary life. He felt a sort of distance or estrangement from reality. This feeling can be obviously explained in various ways, and the future publication of his personal notes will probably add critical details in this regard. As for now, I suggest taking Panikkar at face value and to explain this feeling as a product of a mystical orientation which altered the relationship between Panikkar and the reality around him. In 1991, he wrote: “I can say that I have had this cosmotheandric experience since my earliest youth… this is why I have… been too indifferent to all ‘external’ events” (Panikkar 2018a, 81–82). Without reading too much into these sentences, I suppose a plain interpretation may read like this: when you have experienced the absolute, the experience of the finite adds little to nothing to your life. You accept it (eventually with gratitude), but without giving it too much importance. How this experience of the absolute eventually altered Panikkar’s view of reality (say, the ontology) around him is probably traced back to his writings. How it altered his relationship with reality (epistemology) is clarified in his notes. He became “indifferent,” a word he used several times in his diary (Panikkar 2018a, 187). He became indifferent to the physical and social world around him, and this indifference opened new possibilities to him. The inward reality took on a life of its own, assuming the role of organizing principle of reality tout court. In Panikkar, therefore, one recognizes
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=