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 5 Enrico Beltramini land, he discovered freedom; freedom, however, came with a price, that is, alienation from people, social circles, institutions, roles, and even spouses. In the end, it came with solitude: “the solitude of my intellectual and spiritual pilgrimage” (Panikkar 2018a, 94). With “problematically” I mean that the depiction contains some problems that suggest that a reader take my interpretation, or any interpretation, with prudence. Even after publication of Fragments, Panikkar remains an enigmatic figure. I offer a portrait of a genial and troubled man in search of a compatibility between acosmism and cosmic existence. And yet, this “existence” requires qualification. According to Panikkar, his life was a living experience in this eschatological time in which human beings can be water while being still a drop (Panikkar 2018b, back cover) [4]. For Panikkar, however, this eschatological time is not related to objective time, a time in the future, but refers to practical existence and the way a human being leads his/her life. “The Kingdom of God is within us,” is Panikkar’s classical interpretation of Luke 17:21. The coming of the Lord that traditional eschatology frames in the classic question of when is rather reformulated in Panikkar’s personal notes in the existential question of how. Eschatological time is less chronological time and more specifically existential sovratemporality, that is, “kairological time,” the moment of insight (Gr. Kairos), in the terms exposed in the writing of St. Paul (I Thessalonians 5). Concerning the return of Christ, St. Paul explains that “the Day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night”: the return of Christ cannot be dated chronologically but executed in life. Accordingly, in Panikkar the coming of the Kingdom and the self-understanding are cemented in an authentic life (a true identity). Existence in an eschatological time refers to live an authentic existence, an existence lived in accordance with the Spirit. Apart from a methodological note and a conclusion, the paper consists of three sections. First, An Intellectual Mystic, which concerns the complicated business of dealing with a mystic. In the second section, titled A Trouble Man, I address a less celebrated side of Panikkar, involving his disorientation in life. In the third and last section, With No Home, I investigate Panikkar’s sense of estrangement from all and everything. 2 Methodological Note In his final years, Panikkar attempted to decouple his work from his life, although he had spent most of his life claiming exactly the opposite. The possible motivations of that shift are beyond the scope of this article. Quite inevitably, a growing cottage of scholarly work has been developed to close the gap between Panikkar’s thought and life. This piece belongs to that work. I engage Fragments through a traditional historical theological approach: I situate the historical data – in this case, Panikkar’s diary – in a historical context, his life, and I offer a theological reflection on it. I examine the argument of the relevant notes of Panikkar’s diary, explaining their role in the overall picture, and, where it is illuminating to do so, tracing their connection with his life. The interpretation clarifies and evaluates Panikkar’s arguments, drawing extensively on all the published papers, examining the evolution of his ideas in manuscript sources, and definitively engaging several controversies about this life. This work of interpretation implies a previous knowledge of Panikkar’s work and of the related scholarship. I use Fragments as a primary source, although I occasionally refer to other sources, particularly Maciej Bielawski’s intellectual biography of Panikkar (Bielawski 2013). Readers should be aware that I never met Panikkar in person, so I cannot rely on personal accounts of his persona. Nothing is easy with a thinker of extraordinary magnitude and complexity like Panikkar. The simple term “life” needs clarification. As said, life is for Panikkar a living experience in this eschatological time. I consider Fragments to be essentially spiritual-intellectual material, that is, material in which Panikkar attempted to make sense of his interior life, both spiritual and intellectual in character. That said, Panikkar’s prominent eschatological orientation makes it difficult to assess the level of realism of that material. Although that material is not the result of pure inspiration, by which one proposes to express the reality of the world within, it reveals the absence of all control exercised by reason as well as of moral preoccupation. Panikkar’s diary unveils his belief in the superior reality of certain forms of intellectual frameworks, spiritual insights, and mystical missions, over the concrete and eventually painful condition of social and human cohabitation. His personal remarks signal his belief in the omnipresence of the Spirit and his disinterest in the complexity of practical life. I am not suggesting one disregard his personal notes; I suggest instead to exercise prudence in addressing
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=