Raimon Panikkar | Lady Philosophy by Anthony Savari Raj

Lady Philosophy by Anthony Savari Raj

Paper presented at the Manipal Research Colloquium 2016, held at Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India, held from 4-6 April 2016, by L. Anthony Savari Raj, Associate Professor of Philosophy & Head, Department of Arts Faculty of Arts and Law, Manipal University Jaipur

Abstract

There is in human a feminine dimension which has been much ignored in the majority of philosophical reflections. This paper tries to address this problematic. The feminine dimension seems to come alive in our times, however, through a newly emerging orientation in Philosophy. We may perhaps call this orientation as “interculturality.” Intercultural philosopher-theologian Raimon Panikkar, all through his life, was a champion of this new orientation and much appreciated the “feminine receptive attitude” as the heart of any authentic philosophical activity. “Lady Philosophy” is indeed an elucidation of this endeavor.

* * * * *

We first learn of Lady Philosophy[1] in the medieval philosopher Boethius’ book The Consolation of Philosophy. It recounts, in a literary style, an imagined dialogue between Boethius and a lady who personifies Philosophy.

“Love of wisdom” was proposed by Lady Philosophy to Boethius as a true good. Interestingly, “wisdom” which is a translation for the ancient Greek word sophia is feminine, and includes the intuitive dimension besides rationality, in its intellectual pursuit. Lady philosophy, as we shall elucidate, seems to embody not only the love of wisdom, but also the wisdom of love which appreciates the feminine intuitional, receptive and creative aspect (a universal reality that is embodied by men and women alike) as the very heart of the intercultural orientation which has become the experience and imperative for our times. Let us briefly spell out some aspects of the emerging intercultural orientation to highlight better the feminine receptive attitude required in our new way of philosophizing.

Interculturality, first of all, represents the conviction, that in our contemporary pluralistic and cross-cultural human situation, no single culture, religion, tradition or person is fully sufficient to face – let alone solve – any of our human predicaments single handedly. We need a collective and cross-cultural enterprise with a true spirit of humility which is only another word for the courage to receive and learn from the other.

For this reason, the intercultural orientation invites, and even expects us, to perform a philosophical activity that would exhibit a certain openness and intercultural validity in our new situation of the meeting of cultures. As Gerard Hall remarks,

If the task of philosophy is to understand reality, and reality is something other than myself or my specific culture or worldview, then philosophy needs to become an intercultural activity. This has not always been the case. If I assume that my culture is singularly gifted with access to truth, the philosophical task is primarily pedagogical and dialectical. However, once it is admitted that the other who does not share my cultural worldview is an original source of human understanding, traditional philosophy is called upon to unmask its pretensions of universal understanding.[2]

A consideration of all philosophical problems from an intercultural perspective, therefore, has become an imperative of our times. In this endeavor, no conceptual system can be unnecessarily privileged or allowed to assume the absolute position. Intercultural philosopher-theologian Raimon Panikkar’s understanding of Philosophy becomes crucial here.

By philosophy, he understands that human activity which asks questions critically about the very foundations of human life under the heaven and on earth.[3] And we increasingly realize that this activity can no longer be the monopoly of a single culture and be represented or carried out by anybody in splendid isolation. No philosophy, therefore, can claim to be the philosophy for the whole human kind.

Here, perhaps a consideration on the relation between Religion, Philosophy and Culture becomes important. Religion, Philosophy and Culture, Panikkar believes, are three “elements” of the human reality. If religion could be compared to the feet with which Man journeys towards his destiny, philosophy could represent the eyes that scrutinize that journey, and culture, the earth or the ground on which Man is walking his concrete pilgrimage.[4]

Interculturality, here, stands for the realization that our feet are not the only feet undertaking the journey, that they are meant for walking, preferably together and in coordination, and certainly not for kicking each other; that there are other scrutinizing eyes along with ours, perhaps more penetrating, kind or wicked, and there are a variety of grounds and boundaries on the face of the earth. Geography of knowledge is as important and valid as history of ideas.

Interculturality further implies that we are not expected to leave our culture and jump over our own shadow. We can never renounce our tradition and get into a neutral spot, as it were and philosophize. Really speaking, there can be no no man’s land, in the land of man. Every land is possessed or occupied by someone. It only means that, standing within our house or tradition, we need to open windows and doors in an effort to communicate. We open ourselves, as much as possible, to the experience of the reality of other cultures, ever ready to learn from their wisdoms – in mutual dialogue and criticism. Panikkar characterizes as the imparative method of philosophy.[5]

Interculturality, in a way, is a kind of journey, a journey through a middle way: a mid- way between the colonial mentality which believes that we can express the totality of the human experience through the notions of a single culture, and the opposite extreme of cultural apartheid which thinks that there is no communication possible between diverse cultures.[6] For Panikkar, avoiding solipsism without falling into colonialism, overcoming monism without falling into dualism, is the present intercultural task.[7]

In this sense, intercultuality has to face a twofold temptation: monoculturalism and multiculturalism. Panikkar believes that monoculturalism is lethal and asphyxiates other cultures through oppression. Multiculturalism is impossible and it only leads us to a war of cultures (with the foreseeable routing of the weakest) or condemns us to a cultural apartheid which also in the long run, becomes stifling.[8] Interculturality, therefore, recognizes both assertions and seeks a middle way.

Interculturality shows us that other civilizations, without denying their negative aspects, have had other myths which allowed them to live a full life; but we must immediately add here, that this is no way a matter of idealizing the past or of seeing only the bright side of other cultures.[9]

It is important to note that, all the elements of interculturality that we have described above, ultimately presuppose love as the ultimate basis of any authentic philosophical activity. As we have already mentioned, Philosophy is usually understood as ‘love of wisdom.’ But Philosophy, for Panikkar, is ‘wisdom of love’ besides being ‘love of wisdom.’ More concretely, it means that philosophy should begin to regain the characteristics of love.

First of all, love is more than reason although reason is an essential aspect of love. Reason cannot exhaust love completely. In the same way, philosophy cannot totally be reduced to a rational enterprise although reason is an indispensable instrument for philosophizing. Reason has a veto power over all philosophical insights. But, Panikkar submits, that it is not the only instrument, nor its driving force.[10] This further implies that philosophy which deals with only structures, ideas, rational aspects of reality, shunning life is not only one-sided, since it leaves untouched other aspects of reality, but in addition it is bad philosophy. Reality or life cannot be apprehended, understood, and realized with a single organ, reason for instance, or in only one of its (rational) dimensions. This would make of philosophy another science but would destroy philosophy as wisdom—which is more integrative than reason.

Secondly, love is more than the will. Love cannot be confined merely to our choices. It “is given to us, it is a gift, we find it, we acknowledge it, we accept it or rebel against it, but it is there as material prima, that some will call divine, God or in some other way.”[11] Therefore, love is not voluntary, it is natural, and a given.

Thirdly, love implies an interconnection and interdependence of one with the other. It ultimately points to a relation. As we have pointed out, reality is not merely reason. There are also other dimensions to reality such as Matter and Mystery to which the rational dimension has to be constitutively related. Reality is cosmotheandric (Cosmic-Divine-Human). Anything that is real is not without any of these dimensions. Reality is pluralistic and inter-independent. An undue stress on any of these dimensions would land us into innumerable problems as we have been presently witnessing. This perhaps leads us to reflect on the contemporary context of our lives.

One of the novelties of our times seems to the increasing meeting of people, cultures and world-views. Scholars tell us that we indeed live in a second mutation period. The first mutation period (6th century B.C) witnessed the birth and the blossoming of three important civilizations of the world: the Chinese, Indian and the Greek. After centuries of splendid isolation, there seems to be now a cross-cultural wind blowing. There is a growing realization that in our contemporary cross-cultural human situation, no single culture, religion, discipline or world-view is sufficient even to face – let alone solve – any of our human problems single handedly.

We witness more concretely, for example, the interdisciplinary mood that has emerged in the academic arena. No more biology and chemistry in splendid isolation, we have now biochemistry. Similarly, biophysics, excenomics, ecophilosophy, bioinformatics, genetic engineering, and so on, which indeed give witness to the fact that no single discipline is sufficient to capture the mystery of life all by itself, and that the universal range of human experience cannot be reduced to a single human phylum, however ancient, modern or alluring it may be.

And yet, we find ourselves still in a paradoxical human situation with an equally powerful tendency towards a radical divisiveness, fanaticism and absolutism of all sorts, with the destructive monomorphic attitude: Truth is ONE, and I ALONE have it. The manifestation of this monomorphic tendency seems to range from the slogans of “one truth,” “one God,” “one empire,” or “one king,” in times past, to the more contemporary slogans of “one culture,” “one religion,” “one race,” “one language,” “one ideology,” “one party,” “one science,” “one democracy,” “one world market,” or “one technological civilization.” What ultimately this implies is unity is uniformity and a homogenization of life and experience.

Sharers of this paradoxical situation and also the common global garden, the challenge and task before us, individually and collectively, is to minimize our experiences and practices of absolutisms, exclusions and fanaticisms of all sorts, and maximize and prioritize values of mutual learning and enrichment. “Unity in diversity” has been so much stressed and inculcated in the past. Our times indeed equally demand a discernment of “diversity in unity” with a greater spirit of openness and receptivity to “not in spite of differences, but because of differences.” After all, it’s only in receiving, conceiving can take place!

We may, in this context, indicate two ways of experiencing and approaching reality, as insightfully pointed by Panikkar. These two ways are, experiment and experience, and they have direct repercussions on the contemporary eco-crisis.

Accustomed, dazzled and overwhelmed by the stupendous achievements of modern science we think that the most efficacious approach to know reality is the experiment. But by it, we may only do violence to the things experimented upon. The way of approaching the earth through experiment only seems to justify the patriarchic way, which is aggressive and masculine in character, best represented in power of the eyes in penetration. This way of approach represents a kind of hunter’s epistemology which is an active, aggressive and a readymade process to “obtain,” “acquire,” and “grasp” knowledge. The tool used here is “reason” and “rationality” where reason becomes not only the “tool” but also the “judge” in determining “truth” and “reality.”[12] But we know, shot by the rifle of reason, the bird only falls dead.

Behind this way of experiment, we may deduct a kind of reductionism that seems to be ultimately at work, where the entire reality is reduced to human being, human being to male, male to his thinking, his thinking to reason, and his reason to calculation, and therefore, life is ultimately reduced a calculus.

This reductionism has its origin and echo in philosophy too which may be traced to the Parmenidean equation of thinking with being, and which has reached its zenith in the dominant modern-western scientific world, which has ultimately reduced Philosophy which is supposed to be an experience, into an experiment.

Different from the way of experiment and even opposite is the second way, that is, experience. But this may require more time and even patience. It consists, first of all, in allowing the thing to unfold in a natural way so that we enter into another type of contact with reality, which is more feminine and receptive that allows the thing to penetrate and to unfold in a natural way. It is best represented in the power of the ears. This way of approach is a kind of farmer’s epistemology which is characterized by passivity, receptivity and patience in the process of knowing. While the hunter is actively and aggressively going out to “capture” the object, the farmer prepares the earth to receive the seeds, follow the way of nature and waits for the outcome.[13]

In other words, experience is basically to allow the thing to penetrate into us. Here we become not only “seeing” beings, but “hearing” beings, too. We listen, receive, keep ourselves in simple readiness, and allow the sound to penetrate into us. In a word, we understand by ‘standing under’ the thing to be so understood. We discover the Earth’s wisdom only by allowing the Earth to speak to us. Shooting is still done, but this time, by the crops themselves, by the act of shooting up, and not shooting down!

This reception, conception and, eventually, transformation only intensify and amplify Panikkar’s appreciation of the feminine[14] for the enlightening, loving and healing task of philosophy, which in our times of conflict, is a task indeed for peace.

Panikkar speaks of Philosophy that inspires peace as well is the effect of peace. But for this, he recommends the “feminine” attitude as a pre-requisite. It is evident that our predominant civilization has relegated the feminine to a position of inferiority, as it has done the earth. Hence it becomes paramount that we recognize, subscribe, integrate, and promote more and more the feminist world, experience, lives and perspectives for the promotion of peace.

Subscribing to the feminine, first of all, would imply that we entertain, inculcate and practice the receptive attitude toward life, things, and reality. After all, it is by receiving, con-ceiving, that a new being is created. It all implies the attitude that we are contingent and that we are not sufficient in constructing the entire picture of reality all by ourselves. Panikkar’s words are instructive here:

Peace may be deserved, but it surely is not given, nor won. Peace is received. We need a “feminine” attitude in order to receive it. Our predominant civilization has relegated the feminine to a position of inferiority. And in saying “feminine” I refer, not exclusively to women in our societies, but to the feminine attitude, of which evidently, women, generally, know much more than do men. But I should like to emphasize the fact that in every whole human being there is an androgynous dimension which, sociologically at least, has been ignored and even scorned in many climes. I refer to the receptive attitude toward life, things, reality; to the attitude, which, by receiving and embracing, transforms. I am thinking of reality’s deepest trait—the one revealed to us in one of the most universal acts in the universe: assimilation, which ranges from the absorbing capacity of the orbit of eight electrons to the Eucharist; from the force that leads to organic growth (by receiving from without what is necessary for within) to the instinct that leads to a deeper sense of ‘commensality’ [sharing the dining table] with things, persons, and gods. After all, it is by receiving, con-ceiving [i.e., co-(re)ceiving], that a new being is created.[15]

It is this feminine attitude that forms the ultimate basis to open ourselves up to others. Once the realization of our limitation begins, once we are engaged in a genuine intra-relgious or intra-cultural scrutiny, we will be able to be ready for Panikkar calls the “imparative method.” This method is the effort at learning from the other and the attitude of allowing our conviction to be fecundated by the insights of the other.[16]

Panikkar’s imparative philosophy ultimately stands for the inner preparation that is required by the self with a true sense of humility and contingency. It is a kind of “mental circumcision” or mental disarmament that is required for a cultural disarmament and it is this cultural disarmament that has to precede any military disarmament. Peace, therefore, begins with the self. It also transforms the surroundings as the self and environment are in symbiosis. Hence the call of Panikkar, “Si vis pacem, para te ipsum” (If you wish for peace, prepare yourself; it is translated as “would have peace? Prepare yourself.”) Peace, in other words, is not possible without a self-transformation, and at the basis of self-transformation, there has to be the feminine attitude of receptivity.

It is interesting and significant to note that Panikkar has all along expressed his intercultural insights with a kind of “humoural humility,” indicating and affirming that a sense of humour is essential to his method. According to him, it is a sense of humour which will allow one not be attached to one’s own ideas; it is a sense of humour which will permit the unexpected and the surprises; it is a sense of humour which will convince us that all our ideas only sketches, approximations, stammerings, provisional, symbolic and experiential expressions of the inexpressible; and finally it is a sense of humour which would stand for humility which is only another word for courage to express one’s convictions boldly, without fear.[17] In Panikkar’s words:

We believe what we say and stand by our convictions, but know well that there are other ways of expressing what we want to say such that all our words (except formal terms) are mere approximations. We know well that all our insights and beliefs are only glimpses of the Real we do not absolutize ourselves, nor even knowledge… Humility is probably the highest intellectual virtue. It is not about despair, but rather about humour. Humour plays with words and so does the philosopher, and no play would be real if it excludes chance, the unexpected, the unknown.[18]

In a word, humour ultimately stands for humility and it is humility which should serve as the very basis of cultural innovation – the need of our times. Cultural innovation, in short, stands for a culture’s willingness and ability to learn not only from within, but also from without. The feminine attitude of receiving is the key here.

Panikkar’s “humoral humility” in the sense described above, indeed stands on Panikkar’s sophianic approach to life and reality. Whatever the etymology of Sophia may be, its immediate meaning, for Panikkar, points to the ability to orient oneself in any given context, practical or theoretical. The sophianic approach, to be sure, is a fruit obtained not merely from the tree of knowledge, but also from the tree of life. To quote Panikkar:

This ability in the area of ultimate questions consists not in controlling or dominating but in orienting oneself, sailing into harbor despite sociological winds and philosophical waves. A variety of human cultures have called this wisdom the “vision” of the third eye, the power of faith or mystical experience. We are saying, in other words, that the sophianic approach tries to overcome the pretension of both the approaches, the historical (piecemeal) and the rational (formal). I should not emphasize that Sophia is feminine because in many languages it is not, but the attitude behind this approach is certainly not the typical masculine feature of wanting to grasp, apprehend, dominate, and even know, but rather of being grasped, known, assimilated. The underlying problem is that of thinking and Being.[19]

In a word, the sophianic and feminine approach to philosophy implies that philosophy is a passive participatory activity of acknowledgement before being an active acquirement of pure knowledge.[20] Further, since humour is suggested as the method of philosophy, the feminine receptive attitude, first and last of all, enables us to receive and take ourselves lightly. After all, if we don’t laugh at ourselves, it will be difficult to live with ourselves!

[1] The basic inspiration for this paper springs from the seminal contribution of Michiko Yusa, “Gender, the Feminine and Cultural Disarmament in the Thought of Raimon Panikkar,” Eds. Michiko Yusa, Young-Chan Ro, Cirpit Review, No. 5, 2014, MIMESIS, pp. 113-124.

[2] Cf. Introduction of a summary of the paper presented by Gerard Hall at the International Symposium on the Intercultural Philosophy of Raimon Panikkar, Intercultura Centre pel diàleg intercultural de Catalunya, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, 21-23rd February 2002. http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ghall_panikkar.htm, visited on 15 February 2016.

[3] Cf. R. Panikkar, “Religion, Philosophy and Culture,” (para 10), Polylog. http://them.polylog.org/1/fpr-en.htm, visited on 1 March 2016.

[4] Cf. Ibid., Summary.

[5] Cf. R. Panikkar, “What is Comparative Philosophy Comparing?,” Interpreting Across Boundaries. New Essays in Comparative Philosophy, eds. Gerald James Larson, and Eliot Deutsch (Princeton University Press, 1988), pp. 122-8. Here Panikkar argues that, strictly speaking, Comparative Philosophy or Religion is not possible, because we do not have any neutral platform outside every tradition where comparison may be drawn. We cannot compare (comparare – that is, to treat on an equal-par — basis), for, there is no fulcrum outside. He further suggests that we can only imparare – that is, learn from the other by opening ourselves from our standpoint, to a dialogical dialogue that does not seek to win or convince, but to search together from our different vantage points.

[6] Cf. R. Panikkar, “Religion, Philosophy and Culture,” (para 28).

[7] Cf. Ibid., (para 34)

[8] Cf.Ibid., (para 93).

[9] Cf. Ibid., (para 87).

[10]Cf. R. Panikkar, “Does Indian Philosophy Need Re-Orientation?” Indian Philosophical Quarterly,, Vol. XXX, No. 3 (October 1957), p. 196-8.

[11] Cf. R. Panikkar, “Religion, Philosophy and Culture,” (para 119).

[12] Cf. Young-Chan Ro, “An Epistemological Foundation of Raimon Panikkar: A Mystical Approach,” Eds. Michiko Yusa and Young-Chan Ro, Cirpit Review, No. 5, 2014, MIMESIS, pp. 97-112.

[13] Cf. Ibid. The analogy of farmer, indicated by Young-chan Ro, is very educative.

[14] For an insightful understanding and presentation of Panikkar’s appreciation of the feminine, see Michiko Yusa, “Gender, the Feminine and Cultural Disarmament in the Thought of Raimon Panikkar,” op.cit., pp. 113-124.

[15] R. Panikkar, Cultural Disarmament, The Way to Peace, trans. by R. R. Barr from Spanish, (Louisville, KY:

Westminster John Knox Press 1995), pp.7-8.

[16] Here Panikkar argues that, strictly speaking, Comparative Philosophy or Religion is not possible, because we do not have any neutral platform outside every tradition where comparison may be drawn. We cannot compare (comparare – that is, to treat on an equal-par – basis), for, there is no fulcrum outside. He further suggests that we can only imparare – that is, learn from the other by opening ourselves from our standpoint, to a dialogical dialogue that does not seek to win or convince, but to search together from our different vantage points. Cf. Panikkar, “What is Comparative Philosophy Comparing?” op.cit, pp. 122-8.

[17] Cf. R. Panikkar, The Rhythm of Being (New York: Orbis Books, 2010), p. 36.

[18] Ibid., pp. 13-16.

[19] Ibid., p. 22.

[20] Cf. R. Panikkar, “Religion, Philosophy and Culture,” (para 39).