1 2 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 Notes [1] The quote and page reference are taken from the English version Panikkar 2018a. The English version is the translation from the original manuscript in Italian: Panikkar 2018b. When useful, I will translate directly from the Italian original. [2] Milena Carrara Pavan was a close friend and disciple of Panikkar, who entrusted her with the publication of all his written works. [3] In the course of Panikkar 2018a, the words disciple and disciples show up several times. Since the terms are gender-free in English, the translation sometimes risks to mask the original meaning of “female’ disciple/ disciples”. The Italian version of Panikkar’s diary, on the contrary, refers to discepola/discepole, namely, “female disciple/disciples”. [4] “Being water and not a drop, while [note: being] still a drop.” [5] Scholars must decide whether to assign to Panikkar’s notes included in Panikkar 2018a and written in his eighties the same relevance of the notes he wrote at an earlier age, as typically older people tend to adjust memories and remembrances. [6] Note that the English version does not include “alone and in company,” which is instead present in the Italian original: Panikkar 2018b, 57. I included the missing part in this quote. [7] To be a guru, one needs to previously have been a disciple of a guru. Panikkar was aware of this requirement and recognized that he had no guru. However, he called Melchizedek and ultimately Christ his guru. See Panikkar 2018a, April 18, 1980 (Melchizedek) and April 27, 2004 (Christ). Of course, a guru is usually a real person, not a biblical character or, well, God. Thus, the issue of whether Panikkar was a guru should be considered unresolved. [8] A comparison between Abhishiktananda and Chaduc, on one hand, and Panikkar, on the other, raises the question of ascetism. The former were individuals of astonishing degree of ascetism, in contrast with Panikkar, who was not. While ascetism is not a requisite for mysticism, it is a trait that usually signals a certain interior condition. The question of the ascetism-mysticism relationship in Panikkar remains open to investigation. [9] Wittgenstein’s dictum reads: “whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent” (Wittgenstein 1923). [10] “It is a terrible burden to live with the purpose of ‘being’ and not for an interest in ‘doing’ something. And part of the suffering comes from the fact that I have so many things to do that they put my ‘being’ in danger.” [11] “From an historical point of view [note: I am] an insignificant person who failed to seize his opportunities… from a mystical point of view [note: I am] a person with a vertiginously broad vision, with peace of mind, experience and joy; a person who lives in ‘corpus mysticum’ and operates in synergy with the universe.” [12] “Life lives in us without us being able to divert it, but only live it more intensely.” [13] He believed that the acosmic monasticism was “dead” and replaced with the “theandric call,” that is “monasticism, ascetism and solitude.” [14] Panikkar labelled this condition in terms of angoisse (Fr. “anguish”). [15] Letter from Raimon Panikkar to Enrico Castelli, May 6, 1966, from Varanasi. The translation is my own. [16] “It is hard to have mystical awareness (how else can I call it?) and live an ordinary life.” [17] “[Note: I am not] a hermit, despite the fact that my inner and interior life are so.”
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=