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 9 Enrico Beltramini claimed that he had not “taken full advantage of the profound, unique and unrepeatable encounter with men [sic!]” (Panikkar 2018a, 278–79). As a definition of “irresolution” I borrow a line from Panikkar’s diary. He is talking about himself: “lack of courage, caution, capacity to make a decision” (Panikkar 2018a, 198–99). In its very essence, the concrete, practical existence of the celebrated author of The Unknown Christ of Hinduism and many other famous works is permeated by detachment and irresolution, by the never-ending return to the spiritual, to the mystical. Surely there is a certain overlapping in Panikkar’s notes between indifference as acceptance of the life of the spirit, on one side, and simple passivity and irresolution, on the other (Panikkar 2018a, 13) [12]. Before proceeding, I need to address one problem of interpretation. The difference between the story Bielawski told and the one Panikkar himself told cannot be more remarkable. In Bielawski’s intellectual biography of Panikkar, the latter emerges as a vital, self-directed, active individual who was in change most of the time. In Fragments, Panikkar listed a series of decisions he regretted – marriage, the move to the United States, cancellation of a meeting with the pope (probably referring to that scheduled for June 28, 1966) – and asked himself how they happened (Panikkar 2018a, 291–92). The source of Panikkar’s notes is Panikkar himself; the sources of Bielawaski’s biography are the people around Panikkar. The gap between the perceptions within and without, in a thinker like Panikkar, is excusable. Yet, scholars do a disservice to Panikkar if they consider the private notes more reliable than Bielawaski’s biography. It would equal a fall into a cartesian temptation; it is better for scholars to accept the gaps and live with them. Panikkar’s ideal was “to be a man, just a human being,” which is the unity without confusion of humanity and divinity lived and symbolized by Jesus (Panikkar 2018a, 43). Panikkar had in mind the “I Am” of Abhishiktananda, although Panikkar never mentioned it in his notes. Of course, he was well aware that this ideal must be embodied in this life. However, the embodiment cannot be confused with the ideal; as a consequence, Panikkar was a priest but not your usual priest. It comes as no surprise, then, that Panikkar was a married man but not your usual married man. But, again, Panikkar was “in the world but not of the world; in the Church but not of the Church” (Panikkar 2018a, 49). He was in the priesthood but not of the priesthood; he was in the marriage but not of the marriage; he was in academia but not of academia, and he was in India but not of India (Panikkar 2018a, 49). In Panikkar there is the primacy of the “already” upon the “not yet,” and therefore an unresolved relationship between the “otherworldly” and the “worldly,” an imbalance between inner and outer life. There is in Panikkar, consequently, a certain fatigue of living (“I still believe that I carry the entire universe within”), a certain degree of indecision and even disorientation in dealing with the concrete, practical, ordinary rhythm of existence (Panikkar 2018a, 150). One feels in Panikkar a kind of gap between the limitless world within and the concrete, limited, convoluted reality around (Panikkar 2018a, 46–47). Of course, Panikkar emerged as joyful, smart, and fascinating to his audiences. He recognized that, “yes, I do realize that: a powerful energy comes out of me” (Panikkar 2018a, 154–55). But in Fragments he revealed an unquestionable level of confusion in placing himself in the grand scheme of life. Panikkar played and played again with the otherworldly formulas “I am nothing therefore I am all,” “I am all, therefore I am nothing,” and “I could be something” but “it is better to be nothing” (Panikkar 2018a, 42–43, 156–57, 162–63, 171–72). The emerging picture behind the formulas, however, is that of a man with self-perception but little to no correspondence to the real situation. Panikkar was a priest, but in his opinion every contemplative is a priest (Panikkar 2018a, 282–83). Of course, he had in mind the idea of the “cosmic priest,” but his real condition was to be a priest in the Roman Catholic Church. He was a priest, but he felt monasticism was his real vocation [13]. He was a married priest, but he disregarded the possibility that he somehow broke his sacerdotal vows (and apparently, he never considered the possibility that he broke the marital vows). If in the real life he “did not seek or choose” but rather “passively accepted” (Panikkar 2018a, 125) in the realm of the inward, including the intellectual dimension of the inward, he created himself as an artwork (Panikkar 2018a, 124–25). Those who are familiar with the diary of Abhishiktananda easily detect the signs of a similar malaise (Panikkar 2018a, 95–96). Both Abhishiktananda and Panikkar were unsettled, unhappy, and uncertain of their condition (Panikkar 2018a, 95–96) [14]. Both were constantly questioning what they were doing and where they were going to. Both existed in a permanent inner turmoil. Both were convinced that they had a mission to pursue, but neither knew what this mission was. The difference, however, is that Abhishiktananda felt he had to make a choice between Christianity, his faith, and Hinduism, the source of his spirituality. His problem was to tear back a separation between religions that was not mirrored in his own experience of a Benedictine monk living as a Hindu sannyasi. On the contrary, Panikkar emerges from his per-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=