Subhasis Chattopadhyay Ph.D.

 Lest we forget Raimundo Panikkar

 

 

In a word, is it not time to humbly and realistically resign ourselves to the human condition and give up the grand ideas espoused by metaphysics and theologies of  every sort? Should we not finally recognize that the wellsprings of human creativity are no longer the traditional fields of religion, theology and philosophy?

And yet Man’s innate thirst for unity and harmony can in no way be assuaged by the news that the old ideals of hokmah, sophia, jnana, etc., were mere dreams now debunked by analytic and positivistic “thinking”^[i]; that the medieval ideal of sapientia is gone forever”; that the renaissance ideal of Man is a deleterious, utopian model…that the call for synthesis is pious wishful thinking. (The Cosmotheandric Experience, Raimon Panikkar  5-6, italics Panikkar’s, diacritical marks removed by me)

Raimon Panikkar stands as a monumental figure in 20th-century religious studies, philosophy, and theology, renowned for his pioneering work in interreligious dialogue. His intellectual journey, deeply rooted in a unique biographical reality, provided the crucible for his radical and integrative thought. Born in Barcelona to a Spanish Roman Catholic mother and a Malayali Hindu Indian father, Panikkar lived a life of what he termed “double belonging,” which was not an act of shallow eclecticism but a profound personal experience of spiritual growth. The Cosmotheandric vision of this ex-Jesuit, who never left the Catholic priesthood is useful in understanding both modernism and the world as it is; in the sense of being Weltbildend.

First we will quote Panikkar to understand what he means by this (cosmotheandric) vision and then we need to digress to understand the genius of Panikkar for us Indians, both Hindus and Catholics. For instance, Panikkar in footnote 25 on page 7,  in his The Cosmotheandric Experience republished by Motilal Banarsidass in 1998, refers to St. Thomas of Aquinas and quotes Aquinas: “Amor és vis unitiva et concretive” which as Panikkar points out is a paraphrase of De Divinis Nominibus (On the Divine Names) by the neo-Platonist, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite’s dictum, “Love must be conceived of as a uniting and commingling power”. Panikkar translates this from Pseudo-Dionysius’s old Greek: “ton éréta…endtikén tina kai synkratikén ennoésémen dynamin”. One notes Panikkar’s stress on ‘love’ and his focus on ‘unity’ and his respect for Plato, Patristics and Thomist thought. Panikkar’s concludes:

“On the one hand, this striving for unity seems a constitutive part of being human. Nothing less than unity, nothing less than truth—and truth is not a private value—will satisfy Man. Intelligibility demands a reduction to unity, and love tends to union.? Neither duality nor plurality can ever be the ultimate solution, because by the very fact of their inherent multiplicity they allow for further questioning.’ This thirst for unity is not only ontological and epistemological (unity of being, unity of intellection), it is also sociological and political (unity of humankind, unity of civilizations)…The cosmic consciousness one can still discover —indeed, live —today is of another kind altogether … In this vision, plainly, a God is needed. Nature is not a blind force, but has a divine kernel, or Lord, or even creator (if you think so). What is important is the realization that to follow Nature does not mean to follow blind mechanical forces, but to obey a divine plan, or rather a divine reality, which reveals itself to us in the shape(s) of all that we call Nature…We may glean some idea of what it means to live in a nonhistorical world by considering the cosmic consciousness of many indic sages still living today: here history is not the backdrop to a life of struggle for a better future, worry over what will come tomorrow, or anxiety about whatever we shall be doing with our fellow human beings in the daily activities of the marketplace.

Historical existence, by contrast, is probably best reflected in the media environment purveyed by modern newspapers, radio and television. Today’s “hero,” i.e., the Man of the media culture, is the concerned citizen, ever anxious to know what was afoot yesterday amongst the “giants” … those larger-than-life figures striding across the front page or the television news, making their marks in the fields of politics, sports, finance, and probably also in the so-called arts and culture, nowadays mainly the stage or screen [now supplanted by fame on Instagram]…the cosmotheandric vocation is also a calling to the inner discovery of a lifestyle that is not exclusively historical..[this is] transhistorical consciousness. (Postscript to The Cosmotheandric Experience 7 & 131-33)

Contrast this with the works of Teilhard de Chardin. Chardin’s ‘phenomenon of man’ is squarely rooted in history; one can even say that de Chardin is repackaged Martin Heidegger. Heidegger’s Being and Time makes a strong case for the ‘jiva’ or the human person, the subject, struggling to find autonomy within historical contingencies. Panikkar rejects Heidegger’s blinkered view of historicity: “ It has converted Man into an isolated Dasein—with neither a Da (here, there) where to rest, nor a Sein (being, essence) which to be” (Panikkar 150, Epilogue to The Cosmotheandric Experience); this Panikkar disdainfully terms “radical humanism” (150), which is no humanism at all for the mystical has been erased from our consciousness due to “the swan-song of Romanticism” (130). Teilhard’s compartmental understanding of spirituality seems overhyped when compared to the holistic vision of Panikkar. Panikkar’s Cosmotheandric vision is not ahistorical, but more in keeping  with mystics; being transhistorical, replete with “mystical awareness” (Panikkar 133). Further, Panikkar adds that “The expression “to have a soul” is misleading, due to precisely the dichotomy we intend to overcome. The Earth is not a corpse enlivened by a soul…The very expression anima mundi says not that the Earth has an anima (soul), but that it is an animal, i.e., is animate in the original sense. The very shift of meaning in the word “animal” betrays the victorious influence of the Cartesian outlook, which systematically deprives animals of their animus and thus of their very being as animate things” (139). This theophanic understanding of the world burdened with climate change is primary to the Cosmotheandric vision of Panikkar who is closer to Hinduism than many who are Hindus by birth. We will have scope later in this essay to discuss Panikkar’s rejection of dogmatic Thomism and the reductionist views of Teilhard de Chardin.

                   We are aware of Francis Clooney for his pioneering works in the domains of comparative religion and interreligious dialogue. Clooney’s  knowledge of Vaishnavism remains unsurpassed within Hinduism. Earlier we had the pioneering work of Jacques Dupuis SJ. Dupuis’s discursivity regarding the plurality of religions encourages the scholar to acknowledge the multiplicity of religions in an increasingly connected world. Further, scholars are aware of the effects of colonialism, postcolonialism and the theories of Homi Bhabha’s ‘location of culture’ and ‘third space’ within comparative religious studies; not to say anything of the effects of Gayatri Spivak’s subaltern studies and Emmanuel Levinas’ works on the Hospitable Other. But earlier than all of them; stands tall the towering figure of a Catholic priest who is nearly forgotten in today’s India. This priest, an erstwhile Jesuit, transformed the terrain of Hinduism through his scholarly work and in the process; made Indian Catholicism, to use Shakespeare’s phrase, “into something rich and strange”. The late Fr. Raimundo Panikkar (1918-2010) was a prolific scholar with three Ph.D.s. His work on the Vedas and Christology enmeshed within the thickness of Indian Catholic and Hindu histories will not lose their importance in the next few posthuman centuries. Panikkar’s book The Intrareligious Dialogue (1999) remains a tour de force within the niche of Hindu-Christian dialogue. His ‘The Sermon on the Mount of Intrareligious Dialogue’ remains a cornerstone for those engaging in dialogue. Panikkar’s pithy aphorisms in this ‘sermon’ are more important now when intellectual humility is in short supply. He wrote 26 years ago: “Woe unto you, you theologians and academicians, when you discuss what others say because you find it embarrassing or not sufficiently learned” and before that he encourages those engaged in dialogue: “Blessed are you when you do not give up your convictions, and yet you do not set them up as absolute norms”. Panikkar in a scholarly manner, and Anthony de Mello SJ in a more popular anecdotal manner remain underappreciated in India. It seems to me that Panikkar, especially, is neither extolled or cited enough by Indian scholars — both Hindus and Catholics. This is perhaps because he wrote in a non-digital age. It is high time we celebrate this polyglot scholar and study him with the care he deserves. Otherwise, we may be reinventing the wheel. When we perform the important cultural work of intrareligious dialogue, we must remember that “[m]ere parallelism eschews the real issues” (The Intrareligious Dialogue 8) which are at stake in dialogue since now AI has arrived. In the words of W.B. Yeats, the beast which slouched towards Bethlehem to be born; has arrived as the posthuman. And the works of Raimond Panikkar provide us with an arsenal to fight all inhumanity that rise again. The standard work of his life remains Raimundo Panikkar: A Pilgrim Across Worlds by Kapila Vatsyayan and Come Carpentier De Gourdon.           

Dialogue cannot be practised without simultaneously being within history and to quote Panikkar, and being at the same time, transhistorical.

 

The Intra-Religious Pilgrimage

The intellectual and spiritual trajectory of Raimundo Panikkar is one of the most provocative and complex theological phenomena of the twentieth century. To approach Panikkar merely as a comparative theologian or a philosopher of religion is to fundamentally misunderstand the existential and ontological gravity of his project. He does not only compare systems; he inhabits them. His famous self-description—“I ‘left’ as a Christian, I ‘found’ myself a Hindu and I ‘returned’ a Buddhist, without having ceased to be a Christian” serves not as a biographical curiosity or a declaration of syncretic confusion, but as the hermeneutical key to his entire theological corpus. This statement delineates a methodology of “intra-religious” dialogue, a pilgrimage that occurs not between distinct, externalized institutions, but within the cavern of the human heart, the guha, where the currents of disparate traditions converge and fecundate one another.

Panikkar positions his identity at the sangam (confluence) of four great rivers: the Christian, the Hindu, the Buddhist, and the Secular. This metaphor is precise; in a confluence, the waters mix indistinguishably while retaining the memory of their sources. For Panikkar, this meant that his Catholicism was not a fortress to be defended against the “other,” but a sacramental depth that could open up to the “other.” He challenges the geo-historical monopoly of the ecclesiastical institution, suggesting that being “Catholic” transcends the specificities of the Roman jurisdiction and extends to the Ecclesia ad Abel; the religion of the entire human race from the dawn of consciousness. This radical inclusivity is the bedrock of his claim to be a Hindu theologian who happened to be a Catholic priest, a role that allowed him to celebrate the Eucharist with the same hands that penned commentaries on the Brahma Sutras, seeing in both the same “breaking of the bread” of existence.

The foundation of Panikkar’s divergence from traditional Western systematic theology lies in his prioritization of anubhava (experience) over ideology. He asserts that the spiritual journey is made possible “by living religion as an experience rather than as an ideology”. This experiential primacy leads to what he terms an “experiential-theological circle,” wherein spiritual experience interrogates traditional certainties, specifically the tendency to absolutize the relative. His works are not merely academic speculations but mystagogical instruments intended to induce a “cosmotheandric” consciousness in the reader. This consciousness rejects the dualism of “God and World” or “Subject and Object,” replacing it with a non-dualistic (advaitic) vision where the World, God, and Man form an indissoluble unity. Panikkar sought to heal the “schizophrenia” of the Western mind by re-rooting it in the Rhythm of Being.

Diatopical Hermeneutics and the Dialogical Dialogue

To understand Panikkar’s theological conclusions, one must first grasp the radical instrument he developed to reach them: Diatopical Hermeneutics. Traditional hermeneutics operates within a single cultural “topos” (place) or tradition, interpreting texts by bridging the temporal gap between the author and the reader. Panikkar argues that in the encounter between religions, specifically between the Judaeo-Christian and the Indic, we face a gap not of time, but of topos. We are dealing with distinct horizons of understanding that do not share common cultural postulates. This is crucial since as this author has shown elsewhere the divergence between Thomism and Advaita Vedanta is such that dialogue between Hinduism and Catholicism is well night impossible or if there is dialogue, the terms of such a dialogue are unacceptable either to Catholics or to Hindus from their respective theo-doctrinal standpoints.  Also, it is impossible for anyone who has not called India her own to understand how plurality shapes our being in the world as Hindus and Catholics. The existential experience of being an Indian challenges rigidity of thought within both our religions.  Panikkar’s corpus is a call to transcend all boundaries created by ideological ‘fixations’. Diatopical hermeneutics as constructed by Panikkar is a response to religious dogmatism.

The Challenge of the Gap

Diatopical hermeneutics stands for the “thematic consideration of understanding the other without assuming that the other has the same basic understanding as I have”. It acknowledges that the ultimate horizon of meaning is at stake. When a Christian speaks of “God” and a Hindu speaks of “Brahman,” they are not merely using different words for the same concept; they are speaking from different mythoi, different contexts of intelligibility that define what is real.

●      The Mythos vs. The Logos: Panikkar distinguishes between mythos (the unreflective horizon of intelligibility against which we see) and logos (the rational expression of thought). Dialogue cannot remain at the level of logos (dialectics), which often descends into a competition of concepts. It must pierce the logos to reach the “trans-logical realm of the heart”.

●      The Dialogical Dialogue: This requires a “dialogical dialogue” rather than a dialectical one. The dialogical dialogue is a “meeting of hearts” that refuses to treat the other’s beliefs as mere signs or errors, but views them as living symbols of a primordial experience. It assumes that the other is a source of self-understanding, indispensable for one’s own wholeness.

Homeomorphic Equivalence

The central tool of this hermeneutic is the concept of Homeomorphic Equivalence. Panikkar rejects the search for “synonyms” or literal translations between religions, which often leads to colonization (e.g., translating “Brahman” simply as “God”). Instead, he seeks “functional equivalents”—concepts that play a homologous role within their respective systems.

●      The Function of the Equivalent: A homeomorphic equivalent is not an analogy (partially same/different) but a topological transformation. For example, “Christ” in Christianity and “Ishvara” in Vedanta are not the same concept, nor are they distinct deities. Rather, Ishvara performs the function in the Vedantic system (mediator between the Absolute and the World) that Christ performs in the Christian system.

●      Mutual Fecundation: This recognition allows for “mutual fecundation” or cross-fertilization. The Christian understanding of Christ is enriched by the Vedantic understanding of Ishvara, and vice versa, without collapsing one into the other. This methodology allows Panikkar to operate as a Hindu theologian, using the categories of Vedanta to illuminate the mysteries of the Christian faith, and using the dynamic of the Trinity to invigorate the static tendencies of Advaita.

 Panikkar: The Theologian of Hinduism

To designate Panikkar as a “Hindu theologian who happened to be a Catholic priest” is to acknowledge the gravitational center of his metaphysics. While his ordination provided the sacramental validity and the ecclesial context for his priesthood, his intellectual architecture was profoundly Vedantic. His project was not to “Christianize” Hinduism in the sense of displacing Hinduism, but to recognize the Christic principle already present and operative within the Hindu cosmos—a principle he identified not exclusively with the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but with the eternal Mediator, the Ishvara of Vedanta.

The Unknown Christ and the Role of Ishvara

In his seminal work, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, Panikkar tackles the relationship between Christianity and Hinduism not through the lens of conversion, but through the lens of recognition and unveiling. He argues that Christianity and Hinduism meet in their grasp of a reality that communicates the union of the Divine and the Human. For the Christian, this is Christ; for the Hindu, this role is fulfilled by Ishvara. Here is how Panikkar saw Ishvara:

●      The Theological Crisis of Sankara: Panikkar critiques Adi Sankara’s Advaita for its inability to grant ultimate reality to Ishvara. For Sankara, Ishvara is valid only from the relative standpoint (vyavaharika); from the absolute standpoint (paramarthika), only Nirguna Brahman (God without attributes) exists, and the world is Maya (illusion/unreal). This renders the mediator ultimately unreal.

●      Panikkar’s Intervention: Panikkar attempts to “save” the reality of the world and the mediator by fusing the Christian Trinity with Vedantic categories. He argues that Ishvara is the “Unknown Christ”; the active, creating aspect of God that connects the silence of the Father (Brahman) to the plurality of the world. In this view, Christ is not a stranger to Hinduism but its hidden center, the link that prevents Brahman from being an isolated Monad and the world from being a pure illusion.

However, this early ‘fulfillment theology’ where Christ explicitly unveils what remains hidden in Hinduism evolved in his later corpus into a model of “mutual fecundation”. He moved away from the idea that Hinduism acts merely as a preparation for the Gospel, suggesting instead that the Hindu experience of the Divine offers a corrective to the Christian over-emphasis on history and individuality. He writes, “Christ is the Christian name for that which the Hindus call Ishvara, the Mediator”, suggesting a profound equivalence that challenges any form of  exclusivism.

From Christology to Christophany

The maturation of Panikkar’s Hindu theology is best observed in his shift from “Christology” to “Christophany.”

●      Christology: He defines Christology as a “chemically pure product of the mind,” bound to Western history and culture, functioning as a rational discipline that objectifies the mystery. It is an inquiry about Christ.

●      Christophany: By contrast, Christophany is a direct manifestation of the divine to human consciousness. It is experiential, pneumatic, and intuitive. It is an encounter with Christ.

Panikkar argues that Christophany is not a rejection of the Logos, but an overcoming of the merely rational approach. It emphasizes the “feminine,” passive attitude of receiving the impact of Christ on the human spirit, contrasting with the “aggressive search of reason” typical of Scholastic Christology. This aligns with the Hindu emphasis on Darshan (viewing/experiencing the Divine) over dogma. Panikkar seeks to liberate Christ from the societal limitations of Western Christianity, allowing the “Supername” of Christ to resonate with the Om of the Vedas.

The Avatar vs. The Incarnation

A critical distinction in Panikkar’s Hindu theology is the relationship between Avatar and Incarnation. While often treated as synonyms in casual comparative religion, Panikkar (and his Hindu interlocutors) maintain a nuanced difference that highlights his commitment to the specific texture of each tradition.

●      The Descent of the Avatar: In Hinduism, the Avatar descends to restore Dharma (cosmic order). The Avatar is a theophany, a manifestation of the divine that appears in times of crisis but does not necessarily imply the permanent assumption of matter by the Divine in a singular, irrevocable historical event.

●      The Incarnation as Structural Reality: For Panikkar, the Incarnation is not merely a historical event restricted to Jesus of Nazareth; it is a structural reality of the cosmos. “Creation manifests God… but with the Incarnation we see that it is a Christophany which reveals the nature of God as love”. Panikkar expands the Incarnation to a “deep incarnation” that encompasses the “whole biological world of living creatures and the cosmic dust”.

Panikkar asserts that the “Christic principle” is the “Supername”, a reality that transcends the name “Jesus.” He writes, “Christ is the Christian name for that which the Hindus call Ishvara, the Mediator”. As mentioned earlier, this allows for a “Homeomorphic Equivalence”, where Christ and Ishvara are functionally equivalent within their respective systems, even if conceptually distinct. This formulation allows Panikkar to remain a Catholic priest celebrating the Eucharist while intellectually inhabiting the universe of the Bhagavad Gita, where Sri Krishna reveals himself as the source and sustainer of all.

The Reception by Hindu Scholars

The reception of Panikkar’s work by Hindu scholars reveals the tension inherent in his dual identity and the complexity of his project. While many acknowledged his sincerity and the depth of his Sanskrit scholarship, distinguishing him from casual syncretists, there were significant critiques regarding his appropriation of Vedantic categories.

●      The Logical Critique: Scholars like Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen note that Panikkar often resorts to the “Advaitic principle” or “mystery” whenever he encounters a logical contradiction, which some critics view as an intellectual escape hatch that avoids the rigor of philosophical consistency.

●      The Mediation Problem: Hindu scholars pointed out that identifying Christ with Ishvara does not solve the metaphysical problem of mediation in Advaita. If Ishvara is ultimately illusory (Maya) in strict non-dualism (as held by Sankara), then equating Christ with Ishvara reduces Christ to an illusion from the perspective of the Absolute (Brahman). This forces Panikkar to adopt a position closer to Vishishtadvaita (Qualified Non-Dualism) or the later Bhakti schools, despite his frequent appeals to Advaitic language.

●      The Colonial Shadow: Despite Panikkar’s explicit call for “Cultural Disarmament” and his critique of Western imperialism, some Hindu critics viewed The Unknown Christ of Hinduism as a subtle form of theological colonialism; another “fulfillment theory” that implies Hinduism is incomplete or “unknown” to itself without the explicit revelation of Christ, even if that revelation is interpreted mystically. They argue that Hinduism does not need Christ to complete it, as Brahman is already the fullness (Purnam).

However, scholars involved in the “Hindu-Christian dialogue,” such as those at the Abhishiktananda Society, recognized Panikkar as a pioneer who took the “risk” of interpreting the Gospel through the “cave of the heart” of India. His work opened the door for a generation of Indian Christian theology that sought to be authentically Indian and authentically Christian, moving beyond the colonial impositions of European theology.

The Cosmotheandric Vision vs. The Omega Point

The most profound theological divergence in Panikkar’s corpus is his rejection of the evolutionary, linear eschatology of Teilhard de Chardin. Both men sought to reconcile matter and spirit, to heal the rift between the sacred and the secular, yet their trajectories were diametrically opposed. Teilhard looked forward to a convergence in the future; Panikkar looked inward to a presence in the eternal now.

Defining the Cosmotheandric Intuition

The “Cosmotheandric” (or Theanthropocosmic) intuition is Panikkar’s master concept, the capstone of his metaphysical vision. It posits that Reality is a perichoretic unity of three constitutive dimensions:

1.     Cosmos (Matter): The objectifiable, material dimension, the “body” of reality.

2.     Theos (Divine): The depth, the abyss, the invisible source, the “soul” of reality.

3.     Andros (Human): The consciousness that links the two, the “spirit” that articulates the mute cosmos and reflects the silent God.

“There is no matter without spirit and no spirit without matter, no World without Man, no God without the universe”. This is not pantheism (God is all) but panentheism or, more accurately, radical non-dualism. The three are distinct but inseparable; they interpenetrate one another in a “divine dance” or perichoresis. This intuition resonates deeply with the Vedic concept of Rta (cosmic order), where the gods, humans, and nature are bound together in a sacrificial web of mutual sustenance. Rta is the cosmic rhythm that maintains existence; it is not a law imposed from outside but the intrinsic nature of reality itself.

The Teilhardian Omega Point: A Critique

Teilhard de Chardin proposed that the universe is undergoing a process of “cosmogenesis,” evolving from simple matter to biological life (biosphere), to human consciousness (noosphere), and finally converging toward a supreme point of complexity and consciousness: the Omega Point. For Teilhard, this Omega Point is Christ. It is the goal of history where all things are gathered up in a final unity. This vision is profoundly teleological and evolutionary.

Panikkar rejects this vision on several grounds, viewing it as a sophisticated form of Western materialism and linear obsession that ultimately devalues the present moment.

The Tyranny of Linear Time vs. Tempiternity

Teilhard’s system relies entirely on linear time; a timeline that moves from the past (Alpha) to a better, more perfect future (Omega). Panikkar argues that linear time is a “killer” of the present. It creates a “history” that postpones life. “All is postponed; ‘eternal life’ runs the danger of being situated in the future”. In the Teilhardian scheme, the current stage of evolution is merely a stepping stone, instrumental to the final convergence.

In contrast, Panikkar proposes Tempiternity (a portmanteau of Time and Eternity) as the true nature of time.

●      The Concept: Time is not a flight away from eternity, nor is eternity a duration after time. Rather, time is the “moving image of eternity.” Every moment contains an eternal dimension. To live in Tempiternity is to live in the “eternal now,” where the fullness of being is accessible at every moment, not just at the end of history.

●      The Critique of Future-Worship: Panikkar argues that the Teilhardian projection of God into the “Absolute Future” (Rahner) or the “Omega Point” destroys the sanctity of the present. If perfection is only in the future, the present is merely instrumental; just a means to an end. This fuels the technocratic mindset where “means” are justified by “ends,” and where acceleration becomes a virtue because it brings the future closer.¹⁵

Evolution vs. Involusion/Rhythm

Teilhard views the universe as an evolutionary ascent. Panikkar views it as a rhythmic dance.

●      Teilhard: “Everything rises.” Matter becomes Spirit through complexification and unification.

●      Panikkar: Matter is already divine. “The fact is, to him matter is divine”. Panikkar critiques the “scientific mythos” of evolution when it is applied to the divine. He asks, “What is causing scientists… to drive the pace?”.

The Teilhardian vision aligns too neatly with the Western myth of Progress and Development, which Panikkar views as a colonial imposition on cultures that live in kairological (qualitative) time rather than chronological time. Panikkar insists that the “human being is a peculiar being trying to understand its own uniqueness,” and this uniqueness is realized in the act of being, not just in becoming.

Panikkar’s Cosmotheandric vision is akin to the Vedic Rta (Cosmic Order) in its structure and sensibility than Teilhardian, although he argues it recovers the “lost” Christian tradition of the Trinity. Yet Rta is not a progression toward a future goal but the maintenance of a cosmic rhythm. Panikkar’s vision is fundamentally about maintenance of the rhythm rather than the transformation of history into something else. Panikkar sees the “Trinity” not as a specifically Christian revelation about God’s inner life, but as the structure of all Reality—a concept found in the Sat-Chit-Ananda (Being-Consciousness-Bliss) of Vedanta. In this way, the Trinity becomes a universal symbol of the Cosmotheandric reality, resonating with the Hindu intuition of non-duality more than the Teilhardian intuition of future convergence.

The Omega Point represents the ultimate triumph of the “doing” (technological) man who conquers time. The Cosmotheandric experience represents the “acting” (liturgical) man who inhabits time.

The Rejection of Thomist Scholasticism and the Critique of Substance

Panikkar’s critique of Thomism is blistering and fundamental. He views the Scholastic synthesis not as the “Perennial Philosophy” (as many Catholic theologians of his time did), but as a specific cultural crystallization of Greek rationality that has imprisoned the Christian mystery in dualistic categories. His Advaitic corrective seeks to dismantle the “substance” ontology that undergirds Western theology.

The cornerstone of Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics is the category of Substance—that which exists in itself (ens per se) and does not need another to exist.

●      Panikkar’s Critique: Panikkar argues that “Substance” is a static, isolating concept that makes relationship secondary (an “accident”). If God is a Substance and Man is a Substance, they are ultimately separate entities. This leads to the “gap” or ontological chasm that Western theology tries desperately to bridge with concepts like “Grace,” “Created Habit,” or “Supernatural Elevation”.

●      The Relational Ontology: Panikkar proposes an ontology where relation is primary. “The person is relation.” In the Trinity, the Father is not a substance who has a son; the Father is the relationship to the Son. Without the Son, there is no Father. This radical relationality means that nothing exists “in itself.” Everything exists “in relation.”

●      Buddhist/Hindu Resonance: This aligns with the Buddhist doctrine of Pratityasamutpada (Dependent Origination) and the notions of Anatta (No-Self/No-Substance). It also resonates with the Advaitic denial of the separate reality of the individual soul (Jiva) apart from Brahman. By rejecting substance, Panikkar creates a theological space where the “drop of water” (the soul) can merge with the “ocean” (God) without losing its reality, because its reality is the water (relation).

Essence vs. Existence

Thomism posits a “Real Distinction” between Essence (what a thing is) and Existence (that a thing is) in all creatures. God alone is Pure Act (Actus Purus) where Essence and Existence are identical.

●      Panikkar’s Radicalization: Panikkar critiques the tendency in Scholasticism to treat Essence as a limiting container for Existence. He argues that this dualism precedes Christian content and forces the mystery of Christ into a “container” of Greek ontology. He views this distinction as a conceptual trap that prevents the realization of non-duality.

●      The Verb “To Be”: Panikkar shifts from the noun “Being” (implied in Substance) to the verb “To Be.” Reality is not a collection of static entities but a “Rhythm.” “The entity exists and this existence is its Becoming”. This dynamic “becoming” is not the accumulation of perfection (Teilhard) but the continuous performance of existence (Lila/Play). The universe is not a museum of substances but a dance of relations.

Ontonomy vs. Autonomy and Heteronomy

To escape the false dichotomy between a domineering God and a rebellious Man, Panikkar introduces the neologism Ontonomy.

1.     Heteronomy: The Medieval/Thomist model (in Panikkar’s view) where the “lower” (reason/man) is subject to the “higher” (faith/God) as an external law. This creates a master-slave dynamic between God and Man, leading to resentment and eventually rebellion.

2.     Autonomy: The Modern/Secular reaction where Man rejects God to be free. This leads to isolation, the worship of the self, and the fragmentation of knowledge.

3.     Ontonomy: The “middle way” of the Buddha and the Trinity. Ontonomy is the regulation of a being from within its own deep nature, which is united to the Whole. “The realization of the oneness of the law of the cosmos with the law of God”. In ontonomy, the distinct fields of human activity (science, politics, religion) mutually fecundate one another without losing their identity or rupturing the harmony. This concept destroys the Thomist hierarchy of sciences and replaces it with a circle of relationships.

The Rejection of Materialism and Technocracy

Panikkar’s rejection of Thomism and Teilhardianism culminates in his fierce critique of modern Materialism and its operational arm, Technocracy. For Panikkar, Materialism is not the love of matter (which he supports) but the desacralization of matter.

“Matter is Divine” vs. Materialism

Panikkar makes the startling claim: “Matter is divine”.

●      The Sacramentality of the Cosmos: Drawing on the Incarnation, Panikkar argues that if God became flesh (sarx), then matter itself is the dwelling place of the Divine. The Incarnation is not an exception but the revelation of the rule.

●      Scientific Materialism: He distinguishes this from “Scientific Materialism,” which views matter as inert, dead stuff to be manipulated by the will. The “scientific paradigm maintains that it leaves no place for Man” and by extension, no place for God. By stripping matter of its mystery, science turns the world into a warehouse of resources.

●      The Cartesian Split: He traces this back to the Cartesian split (Res Cogitans vs. Res Extensa). Once matter was stripped of its “interiority” (sacramentality), it became a target for exploitation. Panikkar’s “Cosmotheandric” vision restores the “Theos” to the “Cosmos,” making ecology a theological imperative.

Technocracy as Cultural Violence

Panikkar views “Technocracy” not merely as a collection of tools but as a totalitarian worldview that imposes a mechanistic rhythm on the organic rhythm of life.¹⁹

●      The Acceleration of Time: Technocracy imposes a “linear time” that violates the “natural rhythms” of being. “I am convinced that our technocratic culture… has infringed on the natural rates and rhythms of matter and spirit,” creating an agitated, restless society.¹⁹ This acceleration is a form of violence against the soul.

●      The “Doing” vs. The “Acting”: He distinguishes between “doing” (technological manipulation for a result) and “acting” (ritual/ethical participation in the rhythm). Technocracy values only doing, reducing human worth to productivity.

●      Cultural Disarmament: In his Nine Sutras on Peace, Panikkar argues that “Military disarmament requires cultural disarmament”. Western technocracy is a “cultural weapon” that colonizes other ways of being (e.g., Hindu, indigenous). It imposes a “hegemony by the mind” that destroys the “mythos” of other cultures. Peace is impossible without disarming this cultural arrogance.

Sacred Secularity

Panikkar proposes ‘Sacred Secularity’ as the antidote to both religious fundamentalism and secular materialism.

●      Beyond Secularism: According to Panikkar ‘Secularism’ is the ideology of a closed universe (exclusive humanism) that denies the transcendent.

●      Sacred Secularity: This is the recognition that the “sacred” is not in a separate sphere (Temple/Church) but in the world itself; in time, space, and matter. “To be a secular person is to experience the world as a ‘Thou’, not as an ‘It’.

●      The Stone Example: Panikkar insists that a stone is not just “pure materiality.” Through its existence in space and time, the stone is connected to the entire universe and shares in the destiny of the Whole. To treat the stone merely as gravel for a road is “materialism”; to see the stone as a “Thou” in the cosmic rhythm is “Sacred Secularity”. This vision re-enchants the world without retreating into pre-modern superstition.

The Panikkarian Kairos and the Unfinished Symphony

Raimundo Panikkar stands as a monumental figure who “disarmed” theology of its colonial and dualistic weapons. By inhabiting the tension between his Catholic priesthood and his Vedantic experience, he dismantled the “walls of separation” without dissolving the “distinctions of identity.” His Cosmotheandric vision offers a rigorous corrective to the two dominant pathologies of the modern West: the temporal anxiety of Teilhardian evolutionism and the ontological isolation of Thomist substance.

His legacy for Panikkar experts lies in the rigor of his Cosmotheandric corrective:

1.     Against Teilhard: He reclaimed the Present Moment (Tempiternity) from the tyranny of the Future (Omega Point), validating the cyclical/rhythmic wisdom of the East and offering a therapy for the “future shock” of modern civilization.

2.     Against Thomism: He dissolved the static “Substance” into dynamic “Relation,” allowing for a Trinitarian ontology that is truly universal rather than culturally Greek, and compatible with the insights of quantum physics and deep ecology.

3.     Against Materialism: He re-enchanted the world, not by fleeing to a “supernatural” realm, but by revealing the divinity inherent in Matter itself, bridging the gap between science and mysticism. ‘Enchantment’ is not used here in the sense that Bruno Bettelheim used it.

Panikkar rejected the “Christian Supersessionism” that viewed Hinduism as a mere stepping stone. Instead, he offered a vision where the Sanatana Dharma of India provides the necessary “cosmic confidence” to heal the “historical anxiety” of the West. In the end, Panikkar’s theology is an invitation to Christophany: to see the “Son of Man” not just in the historical Jesus, but in the face of the Earth, the rhythm of the Seasons, and the silence of the Heart. It is a call to move from the “orthodoxy” of right belief to the “orthopraxis” of right rhythm, participating in the divine dance of the Cosmotheandric reality.

The Panikkarian vision remains a “Kairos”—a critical time of opportunity—for a world torn between religious fundamentalism and soulless technocracy. It calls for a “Cultural Disarmament” that begins not with treaties, but with the dismantling of the “Substances” and “Absolutes” we erect against the fluid, interpenetrating Rhythm of Being.

Notes:

After the first few paragraphs I decided to delete all citations and superscripts. As and when I will have the opportunity to publish the hard copy of this essay and some other essays; I shall give in the numerous citations. Otherwise the length of the essay cannot be maintained here. Further, the discerning scholar is also requested to read https://esamskriti.com/e/Spirituality/Vedanta/Re~evaluation-of-Thomism-through-the-Lens-of-Advaita-Vedanta-1.aspx  and https://www.indiancatholicmatters.org/deconstructing-hindu-catholic-dialogue/

 ————-

Subhasis Chattopadhyay Ph.D.  is a theologian and an ex-judge of Sahitya Akademi.