‘Unknown  

Christ’:  
Jesus  Christ  in  the  Writings  of  Raimundo  Panikkar  
 
Introduction  

Every  religion  has  someone  who  by  their  role  of  bridge-­‐‑making  between  various  
traditions  has  paved  the  way  for  better  understanding  of  the  ‘Other’.  Raimundo  
Panikkar  has  been  such  a  bridge-­‐‑maker  between  two  major  religious  traditions  of  the  
world  namely:  Hinduism  and  Christianity.  His  contribution  towards  this  interaction,  
and  its  subsequent  influence  on  Christological  formulations  in  the  Indian  context  is  
indispensable.  One  unique  characteristic  of  his  Christology  is  that  it  emerges  out  of  this  
interaction  between  Hinduism  and  Christianity.    
The  article  basis  itself  on  the  premise:  “Whether  Panikkar  side-­‐‑lined  the  historical  
particularity  of  Jesus  in  his  christologizing  process?”  and  “whether  advaita  played  any  
role  in  this  process?”  
A  person  cannot  be  understood/studied  without  studying  her/his  foundation  
that  includes  her/his  biography,  education,  and  world-­‐‑view.  Therefore,  we  begin  with  
such  an  attempt  to  understand  Panikkar  and  his  philosophy,  theology,  and  world-­‐‑
views.    
Towards  the  end  of  the  essay,  an  attempt  to  evaluate  Panikkar’s  Christology  and  
a  brief  survey  of  advaitic  Christology  is  undertaken  too.    
 
1.  Panikkar:  the  Man  and  His  Thought  World  

Raimundo  Panikkar  (born  Raimundo  Pániker  Alemany)1  is  called  a  ‘theologian,  

mystic,  priest  and  poet.’2  He  is  a  product  of  two  living  religious  traditions  of  the  world:  

                                                                                               
 This  article  is  a  revised  and  elaborated  version  of  the  fifth  chapter  in  the  recently  published  book,  Samuel  
George,  The  Historical  Particularity  of  Jesus:  A  Dialogue  with  the  Hindu  View  of  History  (Kolkata,  India:  
Punthi  Pustak,  2014),  161-­‐‑224.  
1  It  is  interesting  to  note  what  Parappally  says  about  the  different  renderings  of  the  name  of  Panikkar.  In  

some  of  Panikkar’s  writings  his  first  name  is  written  as  Raymond,  in  others  Raimundo  or  Raymondo  and  
lately  Raimon.  Probably  it  is  also  a  sign  of  the  mutation  and  growth  taken  place  in  Panikkar  after  his  lived  
experience  of  world  religions  other  than  Christianity.  Cf.  Jacob  Parappally,  Emerging  Trends  in  Indian  
Christology  (Bangalore:  IIS  Publications,  1995),  foot  note  1,  217.  
2  Scott  Maniquet,  "ʺRaimon  Panikkar,  'ʹtheologian,  mystic,  priest  and  poet'ʹ  dies"ʺ  

http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/09/02/raimon-­‐‑panikkar-­‐‑%E2%80%98theologian-­‐‑mystic-­‐‑priest-­‐‑and-­‐‑
poet%E2%80%99-­‐‑dies/  (accessed  September  4,  2010).    
Christianity  and  Hinduism,  and  of  two  cultures:  Western  and  Eastern.3    National  Catholic  
Reporter  calls  him  “one  of  the  greatest  scholars  of  the  twentieth  century  in  the  areas  of  
comparative  religion,  theology,  and  inter-­‐‑religious  dialogue.”4  He  spent  most  of  his  life  
trying  to  draw  the  connection  between  various  religions,  emphasizing  their  
compatibilities  rather  than  their  differences.    
His  mother  was  a  well-­‐‑educated  daughter  of  the  Catalan  bourgeoisie;  his  father  
derived  from  a  high  Malabar  caste  from  South  India,  had  studied  in  England  and  was  
the  representative  of  a  German  chemical  company  in  Barcelona.  Panikkar  was  born  on  
3rd  November  1918  in  Barcelona.  He  received  conventional  Catholic  education  and  later  
moved  to  study  natural  science,  and  philosophy.  In  1946  he  obtained  his  degree  of  
Doctor  of  Philosophy  from  the  University  of  Barcelona  for  the  thesis:  The  Concept  of  
Nature.  Historical  Analysis  and  Metaphysical  Concept.  In  1958  he  obtained  a  Ph.D.  in  
Chemistry  from  the  University  of  Madrid,  with  a  thesis  entitled:  Ontonomía  of  science:  
On  the  meaning  of  science  and  its  relations  with  philosophy.  In  1961  he  obtained  his  
Doctorate  in  Theology  from  Lateran  University  in  Rome  for  the  thesis:  The  Unknown  
Christ  of  Hinduism.5Around  1940  he  became  friends  with  Opus  Dei6  founder  Escriva  de  
Balaguer  and  was  ordained  as  a  Catholic  priest  in  1946.  
In  1953/54  he  made  his  first  trip  to  India,  which  turned  out  to  be  a  life  changing  
experience  for  him.  He  undertook  religious  studies  at  the  University  of  Mysore  and  
Varanasi.  He  was  struck  by  the  spiritual  wisdom  in  Hinduism  and  Buddhism.  This  visit  
set  the  course  in  life.  He  later  wrote,  “I  left  Europe  [for  India]  as  a  Christian,  I  
discovered  I  was  a  Hindu  and  returned  as  a  Buddhist  without  ever  having  ceased  to  be  
a  Christian.”7  His  meetings  and  close  friendship  with  three  Christian  monks  namely:  
Jules  Monchanin  (1895-­‐‑1957),  Henri  Le  Saux,  also  known  as  Swami  Abhishiktananda  
(1910-­‐‑1973),  and  Bede  Griffiths  (1906-­‐‑1993)  aided  his  transforming  experience  in  India.  
Prabhu  rightly  points  out  that  this  interaction  with  the  Christian  monks  had  a  telling  

                                                                                               
3  Parappally,  Emerging  Trends  in  Indian  Christology,  107.  
4  Joseph  Prabhu,  "ʺRaimon  Panikkar,  'ʹapostle  of  inter-­‐‑faith  dialogue,'ʹ  dies"ʺ  
http://ncronline.org/news/spirituality/raimon-­‐‑panikkar-­‐‑apostle-­‐‑inter-­‐‑faith-­‐‑dialogue-­‐‑dies  (accessed  
November  30,  2010).  
5  "ʺRaimon  Panikkar"ʺ  http://www.raimonpanikkar.org/  (accessed  November  30,  2010).  

6  It  means  “Work  of  God.”  It  is  a  Roman  Catholic  organization  founded  in  1928  by  Saint  Josemaría  Escrivá  

de  Balaguer  (9  January  1902  –  26  June  1975).  It  teaches  that  everyone  is  called  to  holiness  and  that  
ordinary  life  is  a  path  to  sanctity.    
7  Raimundo  Panikkar,  "ʺFaith  and  Belief:  On  the  Multi-­‐‑Religious  Experience,"ʺ  Anglican  Theological  Review  

53,  no.  4  (October  1971):  220.  

effect  on  Panikkar’s  thinking  especially  his  adoption  of  Advaita  to  understand  the  
mystery  of  God-­‐‑human-­‐‑world.  He  writes,  
All  four  of  them  [Jules  Monchanin,  Henri  Le  Saux,  Bede  Griffiths  and  Raimundo  
Panikkar],  in  different  ways,  discovered  and  cherished  the  riches  and  the  deep  spiritual  
wisdom  of  the  Indic  traditions,  and  attempted  to  live  out  and  express  their  core  
Christian  convictions  in  Hindu  and  Buddhist  forms.  To  some  extent  this  multiple  
belonging  was  made  possible  by  their  embrace  of  Advaita,  the  Indic  idea  of  non-­‐‑dualism,  
which  sees  the  deep,  often  hidden,  connections  between  traditions  without  in  any  way  
minimizing  the  differences  between  them.8  
 
For  Panikkar,  Christianity  in  its  historical  evolution  began  as  a  Jewish  tradition  
and  then  spread  to  the  Greco-­‐‑Roman  world,  acquiring  along  the  way  Greek  and  Roman  
cultural  expressions  which  have  given  it  a  certain  form  and  character.  Having  grown  up  
and  having  been  trained  in  a  traditional  Catholic  and  neo-­‐‑Thomist  environment,  
Panikkar  had  a  profound  knowledge  of,  and  respect  for,  that  tradition.  This  knowledge  
prepared  him  for  discussions  with  some  of  the  great  minds  of  20th-­‐‑century  Catholicism:  
Jean  Daniélou  (1905-­‐‑1974),9  Yves  Congar  (1904-­‐‑1995),10  Hans  Urs  von  Balthazar  (1905-­‐‑
1988),11  and  others.  He  was  also  invited  to  take  part  in  the  Synod  of  Rome  and  the  
Second  Vatican  Council.  Prabhu  says  of  him,  
But  Panikkar  did  not  confuse  or  conflate  historical  contingency  with  spiritual  truth.  In  
Hinduism  and  Buddhism  Panikkar  found  other  languages,  in  addition  to  Biblical  
Hebrew,  Greek  philosophy,  and  Latin  Christianity,  to  express  the  core  convictions  (the  
kerygma)  of  the  Christian  tradition.12  
 
His  strikingly  new,  rigorously  argued  and  dramatically  expressed  ideas  got  the  
attention  of  religious  thinkers  and  secular  institutions  around  the  world.  Panikkar  was  
invited  to  teach  in  Rome  and  then  at  Harvard  (1966-­‐‑1971)  and  the  University  of  

                                                                                               
8  Prabhu,  "ʺRaimon  Panikkar,  'ʹapostle  of  inter-­‐‑faith  dialogue,'ʹ  dies"ʺ.  
9  Roman  Catholic  theologian,  historian,  cardinal  and,  a  member  of  the  Académie  Française.    He  is  well-­‐‑
known  for  his  writings  on  early  Christianity:  Dead  Sea  Scrolls  and  Primitive  Christianity  (1958);  The  Christian  
Centuries:  The  First  Six  Hundred  Years  (1964);  The  Theology  of  Jewish  Christianity  (1977).    
10  He  was  a  very  influential  Roman  Catholic  theologian  and  ardent  ecumenist.  Some  of  his  important  

works  are:  Divided  Christendom:  a  Catholic  Study  of  the  Problem  of  Reunion  (1937),  Dialogue  Between  Christians  
(1996).  
11  He  was  a  Swiss  theologian,  and  Roman  Catholic  Cardinal  of  high  repute.  He  is  well-­‐‑known  for  his  16  

volume  Systematics.    
12  Prabhu,  "ʺRaimon  Panikkar,  'ʹapostle  of  inter-­‐‑faith  dialogue,'ʹ  dies"ʺ.  
California,  Santa  Barbara  (1971-­‐‑1987).  Leonard  Swidler,  occupant  of  the  Chair  of  
Catholic  Thought  at  Temple  University,  called  him,  "ʺthe  apostle  of  inter-­‐‑faith  dialogue  
and  inter-­‐‑cultural  understanding."ʺ  
Universities  around  the  world,  Catholic  and  non-­‐‑Catholic,  invited  him  to  give  
lectures.  To  mention  just  a  few  among  hundreds  delivered,  he  was  invited  to  give  the  
William  Noble  Lecture  at  Harvard  in  1973,  the  Thomas  Merton  Lecture  at  Columbia  in  
1982,  and  the  Cardinal  Bellarmine  Lecture  at  the  University  of  St.  Louis  in  1991.  The  
most  prestigious  invitation,  however,  came  from  the  University  of  Edinburgh,  where  
Panikkar  delivered  the  Gifford  Lectures  in  1989.  These  have  recently  been  published  by  
Orbis  Books  as  The  Rhythm  of  Being.  Panikkar  thus  joined  the  select  company  of  William  
James,  Karl  Barth,  Albert  Schweitzer,  and  Reinhold  Niebuhr  to  mention  just  a  few  of  the  
most  famous  Gifford  lecturers.  He  was  in  fact  the  first  Indian  and  the  first  Asian  invited  
to  give  these  lectures.  In  2004  he  was  awarded  an  honorary  doctorate  from  the  
University  of  Tübingen.  
In  a  fitting  obituary  in  National  Catholic  Reporter  Joseph  Prabhu  writes,  
Conversant  in  a  dozen  or  so  languages  and  fluent  in  at  least  six,  he  travelled  tirelessly  
around  the  world,  lecturing,  writing,  preaching,  and  conducting  retreats.  His  famous  
Easter  service  in  his  Santa  Barbara  days  would  attract  visitors  from  all  corners  of  the  
globe.  Well  before  dawn  they  would  climb  up  the  mountain  near  his  home  in  Montecito,  
meditate  quietly  in  the  darkness  once  they  reached  the  top,  and  then  salute  the  sun  as  it  
arose  over  the  horizon.  Panikkar  would  bless  the  elements  —  air,  earth,  water  and  fire  —  
and  all  the  surrounding  forms  of  life  —  plant,  animal,  and  human  —  and  then  celebrate  
Mass  and  the  Eucharist.  It  was  a  profound  “cosmotheandric”  celebration  with  the  
human,  cosmic,  and  divine  dimensions  of  life  being  affirmed,  reverenced,  and  brought  
into  a  deep  harmony.  The  celebration  after  the  formal  service  at  Panikkar’s  home  
resembled  in  some  respects  the  feast  of  Pentecost  as  described  in  the  New  Testament,  
where  peoples  of  many  tongues  engaged  in  animated  conversation.  
At  the  center  of  these  celebrations,  retreats,  and  lectures  stood  Panikkar  himself  and  his  
arresting  personality.  People  who  heard  or  encountered  him  could  not  help  but  be  
struck  by  this  physically  small  man  who  packed  a  punch  and  who  managed  to  combine  
the  quiet  dignity  of  a  sage,  the  profundity  of  a  scholar,  the  depth  of  a  contemplative,  and  
the  warmth  and  charm  of  a  friend  in  his  sparkling  personality.13    
 

                                                                                               
13  Ibid.  
 “He  was  one  of  the  pioneers  in  opening  up  Christianity  to  other  religions  and  
learning  from  them,”  Joseph  Prabhu,  a  professor  of  philosophy  at  California  State  
University,  Los  Angeles,  and  the  editor  of  The  Intercultural  Challenge  of  Raimon  Panikkar  
(1996),  said  in  a  telephone  interview  to  New  York  Times.  He  also  said,    
We  can  see  the  new  waves  of  Christianity  moving  toward  the  non-­‐‑European  world  in  
the  21st  century,  and  he  prepared  the  ground  for  an  authentic  dialogue  between  
Christianity  and  other  faiths,  and  beyond  that  for  the  cross-­‐‑cultural  conversation  which  
marks  our  globalized  world.14  
 
Until  his  death  on  26th  August,  2010  he  lived  in  Tavertet,  in  the  mountains  of  
Catalonia,  outside  Barcelona.  Writing  about  the  loss  of  this  great  theologian  of  cultural  
fecundation  Prabhu  writes,  
Ours  is  a  new  era  in  world  history,  where  thanks  to  globalization  and  the  increasing  
communication  between  cultures  and  religions  it  is  vital  that  there  be  a  well-­‐‑developed  
Catholic  theology  of  religions.  Panikkar  was  one  of  the  pioneering  and  paradigmatic  
theologians  of  this  new  era.  He  has  left  us  a  rich  and  many-­‐‑sided  legacy  from  the  
liturgical  and  pastoral  to  the  theological  and  sapiential.  It  behooves  us  who  follow  him  
to  notice,  absorb,  and  extend  that  legacy.15    
 
Panikkar  has  written  over  42  books  and  more  than  900  articles.  Some  of  his  well-­‐‑
known  writings  are:  The  Unknown  Christ  of  Hinduism  Towards  an  Ecumenical  
Christophany;  Trinity  and  the  World  Religions;  The  Vedic  Experience  Matramanjari:  An  
Anthology  of  Vedas  for  Modern  Man  and  Contemporary  Celebration;  Intrareligious  Dialogue;  
Myth,  Faith,  and  Hermeneutics;  The  Cosmotheandric  Experience:  Emerging  Religious  
Consciousness;  The  Silence  of  God:  The  Answer  of  Buddha;  Invisible  Harmony:  Essays  on  
Contemplation  and  Responsibility,  The  Fullness  of  Man:  A  Christophany;  The  Rhythm  of  Being.  
 
2. Context  and  Content  of  Panikkar’s  Theological  Understanding  

Panikkar  takes  seriously  the  religious  and  philosophical  tradition  of  India  for  his  
theological  reflections.  He  is  of  the  opinion  that  one  has  to  take  one’s  environment  or  
context  seriously  because  it  is  very  much  part  of  oneself  as  one’s  individualized  
substance.  For  him  theology  is  a  dialogue  where  God’s  logos  is  interacting  with  our  
                                                                                               
14  William  Grimes,  "ʺRaimon  Panikkar,  Catholic  Theologian,  Is  Dead  at  91"ʺ  
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/us/05panikkar.html?_r=1  (accessed  September  5,  2010).  
15  Prabhu,  "ʺRaimon  Panikkar,  'ʹapostle  of  inter-­‐‑faith  dialogue,'ʹ  dies"ʺ.  
own.16  Theologizing  is  listening  to  the  word  of  God  coming  from  various  sources  with  
discernment.17    
In  the  Indian  context  because  of  the  exclusivistic  attitude  of  Christianity,  the  
theologians  have  seldom  listened  to  other  voices.  Hence  what  he  says  is  important,  
“The  religious  traditions  of  India  have  become  a  locus  theologicus  of  first  importance  not  
so  much  because  of  an  objective  existence  of  as  because  of  a  subjective  value  in  the  mind  
and  heart  of  the  theologian  himself  [sic].”18  
Panikkar  is  of  the  opinion  that  theologizing  has  a  mystical  aspect  too  as  it  has  to  
proceed  from  an  immediate  contact  with  the  reality  beyond  concept  and  doctrines.  This  
has  implication  for  his  Christological  formulations  too.  His  context  of  Christological  
reflection  is  a  dialogue  with  and  encounter  of  Christianity  with  Hinduism.  
Christianity’s  claim  of  the  Mystery  of  God  uniquely  revealed  in  Jesus  Christ  is  
challenged  by  Hinduism,  which  considers  that  all  religions  are  equal.  For  Christianity  
faith  is  not  a  formula  but  the  commitment  to  the  person  of  Christ  to  whom  belongs  
Hinduism  and  Christianity  whether  Hinduism  likes  it  or  not.19  It  is  in  this  context  his  
Christological  formulations  develop.  He  says,  that  he  does  not  want  to  “Hinduise  
Christianity  or  Christianize  Hinduism.”20  In  all  his  writings  Panikkar  portrays  a  
multiplicity  and  plurality  of  thoughts,  which  sometimes  becomes  difficult  to  decipher.  
Different  polarities  or  dichotomies  like  God  and  World,  Mythos  and  Logos,  Spirit  and  
Matter,  Subject  are  Object  are  tried  to  overcome  through  a  holistic  or  mystical  vision  of  
the  Reality.  In  the  holistic  approach  Panikkar  proposes  that  polarities  are  to  be  seen  as  
the  character  of  the  reality.  For  him  these  polarities  are  independent  and  mutually  
inconclusive  if  we  do  not  substantivize  one  of  the  poles  or  consider  their  relation  as  
secondary  or  as  subsidiary  to  their  independent  being.21  He  is  more  concerned  of  the  
whole  than  the  parts.  He  thinks  that  his  vocation  is  to  reach  the  synthesis  or  to  have  a  
basic  attitude,  which  is  all-­‐‑embracing.  But  he  is  also  aware  of  the  fact  that  on  the  

                                                                                               
16  Raimundo  Panikkar,  "ʺIndian  Theology:  A  Theological  Mutation,"ʺ  in  Theologizing  in  India.  Selection  of  
Papers  presented  at  the  Seminar  held  in  Poona  on  October  26-­‐‑30,  1978,  ed.  M.  Amaladoss,  T.  K.  John,  and  G.  
Gispert-­‐‑Sauch(Bangalore:  Theological  Publications  in  India,  1981),  23.  
17  Parappally,  Emerging  Trends  in  Indian  Christology,  108.  

18  Panikkar,  "ʺIndian  Theology:  A  Theological  Mutation,"ʺ  28.  

19  Parappally,  Emerging  Trends  in  Indian  Christology,  109.  

20  Raimundo  Panikkar,  Myth,  Faith  and  Hermeneutics.  Cross-­‐‑Cultural  Studies  (New  York:  Paulist  Press,  

1979),  69.  
21  Raimundo  Panikkar,  "ʺThe  Silence  of  the  Word:  Non-­‐‑Dualistic  Polarities,"ʺ  Cross  Currents  24,  no.  2  

(Summer  -­‐‑  Fall,  1974):  163.  

existential  level  this  is  a  conversion  without  alienation,  a  synthesis  without  syncretism  
and  a  symbiosis  without  ecclectism.22  This  section  is  an  attempt  to  understand  the  
context  and  content  of  Panikkar’s  theology.  Such  a  study  helps  in  deciphering  his  
Christological  formulations.  
 
2.1.  Cosmotheandric  Vision  
For  Panikkar,  the  cosmotheandric  vision  is  not  a  metaphysical  thesis  but  is  based  
on  a  phenomenological  analysis.  Three  irreducible  dimensions  of  reality  namely:  cosmos,  
theos,  anthropos  are  brought  into  an  unique  platform  which  Panikkar  calls  as  
cosmotheandrism.  They  are  uniquely  distinct  but  inseparable.  “Inter-­‐‑relatedness,”  “inter-­‐‑
dependence,”  and  “inter-­‐‑independence”  are  the  hallmarks  of  the  cosmotheandric  
reality.  In  other  words,  whatever  ‘is’  is  relational.23  
Panikkar  had  a  deep  personal  interest  in  the  triad  of  the  reality  as  cosmos,  theos,  
and  anthropos.  For  him  these  realities  are  not  mere  theoretical  propositions  but  total  
participation  of  his  person.  Following  quotations  would  help  us  to  understand  his  
position  from  a  very  early  stage  of  his  life:  
“As  long  as  I  can  remember,  I  have  felt  a  great  need  to  encompass  reality,  or  better,  to  
become  reality  –  to  live.”24  
“Thus  all  my  life  I  have  been  dealing  with  ultimate  questions  –  not  in  purely  theoretical  
manner  but  by  fully  participating  in  them  as  person.”25  
“For  well  over  fifty  years  I  have  been  thematically  concerned  with  the  problem  spelled  
out  in  this  book  …  my  lifelong  fondness  for  synthesis,  theandrism,  myth  and  apophatism,  
all  vouch  for  this  attitude  which  I  now  formulate  as  a  hypothesis….”26  
 
Three  assumptions  lay  behind  Panikkar’s  cosmotheandric  triad:  
1.  Reality  is  ultimately  harmonious.  It  is  neither  a  monolithic  unity  nor  sheer  
multiplicity.  

                                                                                               
22  Cf.  Parappally,  Emerging  Trends  in  Indian  Christology,  113.  
23  Pradeep  Mattathilanickel,  "ʺCosmotheandric  Religion:  Panikkar'ʹs  Emerging  Philosophy,"ʺ  in  Raimon  
Panikkar:  Being  Beyond  Borders;  A  Commemorative  Volume,  ed.  Johnson  J.  Puthenpurackal(Bangalore  &  
Eluru:  ATC  &  ACPI,  2012),  532.  
24  Raimon  Panikkar,  A  Dwelling  Place  for  Wisdom  (Kentucky:  Westminster  John  Knox  Press,  1993),  90.  

25  Ibid.  

26  Raimon  Panikkar,  The  Cosmotheandric  Experience:  Emerging  Religious  Consciousness,  ed.  Scott  Eastham,  

First  Indian  Edition  ed.  (New  Delhi:  Motilal  Banarsidass  Publishers  Private  Limited,  1998),  4-­‐‑5.  
2.  Reality  is  radically  relational  and  interdependent  so  that  every  reality  is  constitutively  
connected  to  all  other  realities.  
3.  Reality  is  symbolic  as  pointing  to  and  participating  in  something  beyond  itself.  
The  divine  (theos)  dimension  of  reality  is  the  depth-­‐‑dimension  to  everything  that  is.  
Consciousness  is  the  human  (anthropos)  dimension  of  reality,  which  is  not  reducible  to  
humanity.  Humans  participate  in  the  evolving  cosmos  of  which  they  are  a  part.  They  
also  participate  in  the  divine  mystery  of  freedom.27  The  world  (cosmos)  of  matter,  
energy,  space  and  time  are  realities  that  are  ultimate  and  irreducible.  Every  spiritual  
action  is  a  radical  cosmic  interaction.  “There  is  no  sacredness  without  the  secularity  of  
the  world.”28  The  ‘worldly’  realities  in  this  sense  are  co-­‐‑extensive  with  both  human  
consciousness  and  the  divine  mystery.    
This  mutual  inter-­‐‑dependence,  inter-­‐‑penetration  and  distinct  uniqueness  of  each  
realities  of  cosmos,  theos,  anthropos  is  called  cosmotheandric  reality.  
 
2.2. Advaita  and  Trinitarian  Vision  of  Reality  

In  order  to  overcome  the  dichotomy  between  monism  and  dualism  Panikkar  
proposes  an  advaitic  intuitive  interpretation.  It  is  the  immediate  experience  of  the  
reality,  which  overcomes  the  dilemma  of  monism-­‐‑dualism  scheme  of  understanding  
and  expressing  reality.  He  says  that  advaita  does  not  absolutize  the  difference  or  ignore  
it.29  He  argues  that  advaitic  intuition  helps  us  to  overcome  dualism,  monism,  pantheism  
and  monotheism.  Along  with  it  he  proposes  a  Trinitarian  vision  of  Reality  because  
Trinitarian  intuition  of  reality  expresses  the  radical  relativity,  which  allows  the  
possibility  of  infinite  unity  and  infinite  differences.    
The  Father  is  the  apophatic,30  silence  dimension  of  the  reality.  “The  Father  has  no  
being,  the  Son  is  his  being.”31  The  Father,  “the  kenosis  of  Being,”32  is  “a  movement  

                                                                                               
27  Panikkar  shows  that  genuine  human  experience  involves  the  triad  of  senses,  intellect  and  mystical  
awareness  in  correlation  with  matter,  thought  and  freedom.  Cf.  George  Panthanmackel,  "ʺThe  Notion  of  
Reality:  The  Vision  of  Reality,"ʺ  in  Raimon  Panikkar:  Being  Beyond  Borders;  A  Commemorative  Volume,  ed.  
Johnson  J.  Puthenpurackal(Bangalore  &  Eluru:  ATC  &  ACPI,,  2012),  103.  
28  Ibid.,  104.  

29  Cf.  Parappally,  Emerging  Trends  in  Indian  Christology,  113.  

30  For  Panikkar  apophatism  means  the  silence  of  Being  (subjective  genitive),  that  dimension  which  is  

silence.  Raimundo  Panikkar,  The  Trinity  and  the  Religious  Experience  of  Man,  Icon-­‐‑Person-­‐‑Mystery  (London:  
Darton,  Longman  and  Todd,  1979),  47-­‐‑48.  
31  Ibid.,  48.  

32  Ibid.,  47.  
towards  …  no  place,  a  prayer,  which  is  always,  open  towards  …  the  infinite  horizon  
which,  like  a  mirage,  always  appears  in  the  distance  because  it  is  no-­‐‑where.”33  
The  Son,  for  Panikkar  is,  God-­‐‑from  God  and  Light-­‐‑from  Light.  Only  the  Son  is.  Son  
is  the  Being  of  God.  He  is  the  Logos.  He  writes,  “Strictly  speaking  one  does  not  see  the  
Son  outside  the  Father  nor  the  Father  outside  the  Son.”34  Whatever  is  asserted  of  God  is  
asserted  of  the  Son.  
The  Spirit  is  the  divine  immanence.  Father  is  the  absolute  ‘I’  the  Son  the  ‘Thou’  
and  the  Spirit  ‘We.’  The  Father  eternally  empties  ‘himself’  (kenosis)  in  the  Son  but  
without  ever  exhausting  himself  as  it  were.  This  eternal  inexhaustibility  is  due  to  the  
Spirit  who  is  the  eternal  return  to  the  Father.35  
For  Panikkar,  there  is  an  interdependence  and  mutual  penetration  between  
Father,  Son  and  Spirit  where  the  irreducible  uniqueness  of  each  ‘Person’  is  preserved  
without  in  any  way  mitigating  their  interdependence.  It  is  here  one  sees  the  advaitic  
influence  of  Panikkar  in  explaining  Trinity.  For  Panikkar,  there  is  an  advaitic  
relationship  between  the  three  Persons.  Father,  Son  and  Spirit  are  each  unique  in  their  
own  self  and  being  but  fully  interdependent  so  that  no  one  can  be  without  the  other.36  
In  his  vision  of  reality,  Panikkar  argues  that  Eternity  and  temporality  are  co-­‐‑
related.  Here  history  is  neither  absolutized  nor  neglected  as  inconsequential.  This  
understanding  of  him  is  important  for  his  views  on  historical  Jesus.  For  him  the  
Mystery  of  Christ  is  both  historical  Jesus  and  the  living  Christ  of  existential  experience.  
This  Christ  is  the  only  link  between  Absolute  and  relative,  eternal  and  temporal  and  is  
known  and  unknown  in  all-­‐‑authentic  religions.  In  his  approach  to  Christology  he  
applies  the  principle  of  complementarity.37  

                                                                                               
33  Ibid.,  48-­‐‑49.  
34  Ibid.,  49.  
35  Ibid.,  42.  In  a  similar  fashion,  Keshub  Chunder  Sen  (1838-­‐‑84)  too  explained  Trinity.  In  his  famous  

lecture  That  Marvelous  Mystery  –  The  Trinity  in  1882,  Sen  explained  Trinity  as  Saccidāananda  (Sat,  Cit,  
Ananda).  God,  the  Father  is  the  Creator,  the  Still  God,  the  I  am,  the  Force,  the  True,  the  Sat  (Truth).  God,  
the  Son  is  the  Exemplar,  the  Journeying  God,  the  I  love,  the  Wisdom,  the  Good,  the  Cit  (Intelligence).  God  
the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  Sanctifier,  the  Returning  God,  the  I  save,  the  Holiness,  the  Beautiful,  the  Ananda  
(Joy/Bliss).  Robin  H.  S.  Boyd,  An  Introduction  to  Indian  Christian  Theology  (New  Delhi:  ISPCK,  1994),  34.  
36  Francis  X.  D'ʹSa,  "ʺRelevance  of  Raimon  Panikkar:  A  Preview  of  His  Thought,"ʺ  in  Raimon  Panikkar:  Being  

Beyond  Borders;  A  Commemorative  Volume,  ed.  Johnson  J.  Puthenpurackal(Bangalore  &  Eluru:  ATC  &  ACPI,  
2012),  49.  
37  Cf.  Samuel  George,  "ʺThe  Emergence  of  Christology  in  the  Early  Church:  a  Methodological  Survey  with  

Particular  Reference  to  the  Anti-­‐‑Heretical  Polemics  of  Irenaeus  of  Lyons,"ʺ  Asia  Journal  of  Theology  24,  no.  2  
(October  2010):  219-­‐‑253.  
2.3. Mythos  and  Logos  

For  Panikkar,  the  Reality  can  be  comprehended  by  the  way  one  looks  at  human  
consciousness.  This  for  him  is  best  understood  by  two  modes  of  human  awareness,  
namely:  mythos  and  logos.  Mythos  for  him  is  the  “human  organ  of  apprehension  on  the  
same  level  as  the  logos  and  in  constant  relation  with  it.  Mythos  and  Logos  are  two  
human  modes  of  awareness,  irreducible  one  to  the  other,  but  equally  inseparable.”38  It  is  
the  unspoken,  non-­‐‑linguistic  dimension  of  human  knowing.39  In  the  same  line  he  says  
that  myth  is  the  horizon  of  experiencing  the  reality.  For  Panikkar  myth  is  the  vehicle  of  
mystery.  Without  the  aspect  of  mystery  myth  would  die  and  vice-­‐‑versa.40  Seen  and  
believed  from  inside  myth  is  the  foundation  of  our  conviction  of  truth  but  seen  from  
outside  it  appears  to  by  legend,  which  sometimes  can  mean  non-­‐‑factual.  For  Panikkar,  
there  is  an  advaitic  relationship  operating  between  mythos  and  logos.  They  cannot  be  
separated;  there  cannot  be  the  one  without  the  other.  Symbol  is  understood  at  the  level  
of  mythos,  not  at  the  level  of  the  logos.  D’Sa  writes,  “When  one  reduces  a  symbol  to  an  
‘object,’  i.e.,  when  one  has  overlooked  the  symbolic  difference,  then  one  has  reduced  it  
to  the  logos-­‐‑level.  The  mythos  speaks  through  the  logos  and  logos  gets  it’s  meaning  from  
the  mythos.”41  
Panikkar  considers  one  of  the  myths  of  the  Western  civilization  is  history.  
Incontestability  of  facts  is  determined  by  referring  to  history.  Myths  are  compared  to  
history  and  anything,  which  does  not  come  up  to  its  evaluative  standard,  is  rejected  as  
mythical.  He  argues  that  there  is  nothing  called  pure  facts.  He  does  not  agree  to  the  
contemporary  dictum  –  whatever  historical  is  real  and  therefore  true,  and  whatever  is  
mythic  is  non-­‐‑historical  and  therefore  imaginary  or  unreal.  From  the  mythical  point  of  
view,  the  historical  facts  are  only  partial,  transitory  examples  of  a  reality,  which  is  

                                                                                               
38  Panikkar,  Myth,  Faith  and  Hermeneutics.  Cross-­‐‑Cultural  Studies,  100.  
39  Cf.  Ibid.,  100ff.  Prioritizing  of  reason  in  modernity  has  almost  receded  the  mythic  mode  of  human  
consciousness.  The  mythic  mode  is  the  background  consciousness  that  functions  as  our  ‘operating  
system’  of  being-­‐‑and-­‐‑understanding.  Often  it  is  not  objectifiable,  recognizable  in  the  thematized  world  of  
the  logos  (as  in  the  case  of  an  iceberg  only  a  part  of  it  is  visible  and  recognized).  It  is  an  evident  fact  that  
mythic  consciousness  is  dominant  in  our  ‘knowing’  and  logos-­‐‑consciousness  in  our  ‘knowing-­‐‑about.’  
There  is  a  constant  movement  from  mythos  to  logos  and  vice-­‐‑versa.  Whatever  is  presently  understood  
comes  sooner  or  later  to  be  expressed  in  language  and  that  the  meaning  of  whatever  is  expressed  in  
language  recedes  in  the  background  and  becomes  part  of  our  ‘operating  system.’  D'ʹSa,  "ʺRelevance  of  
Raimon  Panikkar:  A  Preview  of  His  Thought,"ʺ  53.  
40  Panikkar,  Myth,  Faith  and  Hermeneutics.  Cross-­‐‑Cultural  Studies,  41.  

41  D'ʹSa,  "ʺRelevance  of  Raimon  Panikkar:  A  Preview  of  His  Thought,"ʺ  54.  
always  trans-­‐‑historical.42  In  his  approach  to  Christology  in  the  Indian  context  he  prefers  
to  emphasize  the  trans-­‐‑historical  dimension  of  Christ  than  the  historical  dimension  of  
Christ  in  the  Jesus  of  Nazareth  because  he  feels  that  if  historical  Christ  is  proclaimed  in  
India  (as  it  is  done  by  the  missionaries)  it  is  nothing  but  Docetism  is  preached.43  
 
2.4.  Symbol  and  Symbolic  Difference  
Symbol  is  of  great  significance  in  understanding  Panikkar.  It  has  a  special  
meaning  for  him.  D’Sa  explains  it  quite  clearly:  
To  put  it  in  my  own  ways:  the  cosmic,  the  human,  and  the  divine  dimensions  
(cosmotheandric)  are  part  of  a  symbolic  world.  A  smile,  for  example,  is  the  symbol  of  the  
joy,  which  is  the  symbolized  reality.44  But  this  symbol  (smile)  really  makes  present  the  joy,  
which  is  in  the  heart.  The  joy  is  accessible  to  the  perceiver  only  through  its  symbol,  the  
smile.  A  symbol  (like  a  smile)  ‘symbolizes,’  that  is,  it  ex-­‐‑presses  and  makes  present  the  
‘symbolized  reality’;  the  one  who  ‘sees’  the  joy  in  the  smile  is  the  symbolizer.  The  
symbolizer  who  is  struck  by  the  smile  does  not  invent,  he  only  discovers  the  smile.  With  the  
discovery  of  the  symbolized  reality  in  the  symbol  the  person  is  transformed  into  a  
symbolizer.45  
 
There  is  an  advaitic  relationship  between  the  symbol,  symbolized  reality,  and  
symbolizer.  The  differences  between  them  are  both  maintained  as  well  as  obviated  in  a  
unique  way.  For  Panikkar,  the  world  of  symbol  is  holistic.  The  symbolizer  needs  to  
under  stand  the  symbolized  reality  in  the  symbol.  If  not,  it  would  be  mere  object,  where  
there  is  no  depth-­‐‑dimension.  ‘Appearance’  cannot  replace  ‘Reality’  neither  are  they  

                                                                                               
42  The  contemporary  world  is  for  the  emphasis  on  the  historical  as  real.  The  other  dimensions  of  reality  
are  often  neglected  as  unexplainable.  The  Hindu  world-­‐‑view  emphasizes  on  the  wholeness  and  
interrelatedness,  and  neglects  the  historical  dimension  of  reality  and  human  person.  They  have  an  
underlying  mythical  world-­‐‑view.  For  Hindus,  Krishna  is  not  a  historical  fact  but  a  religious  fact.  He  is  the  
living  and  real  Krishna  for  most  of  those  who  believe  in  him.  For  most  Christians  the  true  Christ  who  is  
equally  living  and  real  is  not  the  mystical  Christ  but  the  historical  fact  of  Jesus  and  his  continuing  
presence  in  history.  Panikkar,  Myth,  Faith  and  Hermeneutics.  Cross-­‐‑Cultural  Studies,  99-­‐‑100.  
43  Ibid.,  100.  

44  Other  examples  can  be  ‘lily’  as  the  symbol  of  ‘purity’;  body  as  the  symbol  of  person.  To  identify  lily  as  

purity  or  body  as  person  is  to  “overlook  the  symbolic  difference,  i.e.,  to  mistake  the  symbol  for  the  
symbolized,  is  precisely  avidyā,  ignorance,  confusing  the  appearance  with  the  reality.  But  Reality  is  
Reality  precisely  because  it  ‘appears’  real.”  Ibid.,  6-­‐‑7.  
45  Raimon  Panikkar,  The  Rhythm  of  Being:  The  Gifford  Lectures  (Maryknoll,  New  York:  Orbis  Books,  2010),  

ix.  D’Sa’s  comments  on  the  concept  of  symbol  of  Panikkar,  Cf.  D'ʹSa,  "ʺRelevance  of  Raimon  Panikkar:  A  
Preview  of  His  Thought,"ʺ  50-­‐‑51.  
opposed  to  each  other.  However,  ‘appearance’  is  that  mode  of  being  through  which  
‘Reality’  ‘puts  in  its  appearance.’  ‘Appearance’  is  the  symbol-­‐‑dimension  and  ‘Reality’  
the  symbolized-­‐‑dimension.46  
Panikkar  clarifies  that  the  world  of  symbol  is  very  unique  and  different  from  the  
world  of  concepts.47  Only  the  symbol  points  and  takes  us  to  the  real  ‘thing’  that  is  
symbolized.48  This  position  of  Panikkar  has  implications  for  his  Christological  
formulations.    
 
2.5. Person  and  Individual  

Panikkar  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  mystery  of  Person  is  the  symbol  of  the  
ontonomical49  order.  For  him  person  is  neither  singular  nor  plural  but  a  conjunction.  
Relationship  is  ontological  and  constitutive  of  a  person.  He  says,  “A  person  is  a  bundle  
of  relationships,  which  cross  at  a  certain  centre  which  may  call  personality,  or  even,  if  
we  insist  individuality,  but  this  centre  can  in  no  way  be  regarded  as  synonymous  for  a  
person.”50  
An  individual  is  a  practical,  pragmatic  and  artificial  abstraction  and  is  a  concept  
limited  to  qualification.  It  answers  the  question  what  one  is  but  not  who  one  is.  
Panikkar  is  of  the  opinion  that  we  can  avoid  the  dichotomy  created  between  individual  
and  society  if  we  take  into  serious  consideration  the  integral  anthropology  in  which  
human  being  is  not  considered  as  an  individual  but  as  a  person  and  society  not  as  a  
sum  total  of  individuals  but  as  the  natural  and  personal  field  of  human  interaction.51  
In  his  principle  of  individuation,  Panikkar,  talks  about  double  principle  of  
individuation:  a  principle  of  singularity  which  depends  on  external  factors  in  order  to  
distinguish  one  from  another  and  a  principle  of  individuality  which  belongs  to  the  
                                                                                               
46  D'ʹSa,  "ʺRelevance  of  Raimon  Panikkar:  A  Preview  of  His  Thought,"ʺ  51.  
47  The  world  of  symbol  grasps  us;  whereas,  in  the  world  of  concepts  we  grasp  (conceive)  things.  But  the  
latter  happens  only  when  the  former  has  grasped  us  in  the  first  place.  Panikkar,  The  Rhythm  of  Being:  The  
Gifford  Lectures,  197.  Panikkar  writes,  “The  concept  demands  understanding,  the  symbol  participation.”  
48  D'ʹSa,  "ʺRelevance  of  Raimon  Panikkar:  A  Preview  of  His  Thought,"ʺ  54.  

49  Ontonomy  is  the  realization  of  the  nomos,  the  law  of  the  one,  being,  at  that  profound  level  where  the  

latter  is  rather  unique  and  proper  manifestation  of  the  former.  It  recognizes  the  radical  relativity  of  all  
beings,  sees  the  reality  as  non-­‐‑dualistic  polarities  and  opens  the  way  for  the  integration  of  every  being  
into  harmonious  whole.  Panikkar,  The  Rhythm  of  Being:  The  Gifford  Lectures,  ix.  
50  Raimundo  Panikkar,  Worship  and  Secular  Man:  An  essay  on  the  Liturgical  Nature  of  Man,  considering  

Secularization  as  a  Major  Phenomenon  of  our  time  and  Worship  as  an  apparent  fact  of  all  times;  A  Study  towards  
an  integral  Anthropology.  (Maryknoll,  New  York:  Orbis  Books,  1973),  4.  
51  Ibid.  
constitution  of  beings  which  are  capable  of  self-­‐‑identity.52  Applying  this  principle  to  
Christology,  he  asks  whether  Jesus  is  to  be  considered  just  as  an  individual  in  the  sense  
of  asking  for  his  singularity  as  a  member  of  a  species  or  just  one  human  being,  a  single  
individual.  It  is  also  the  question  whether  identity  has  to  take  the  form  of  singularity.  
For  him,  the  ‘who’  of  Christ  is  more  important  than  the  ‘what’  of  Christ.  He  further  
argues  that  we  have  to  emphasize  the  Personhood  of  Christ  and  not  his  individuality  as  
Jesus  of  Nazareth.  He  says,  “Individuality  is  precisely  what  does  not  answer  the  
question  of  ‘who’.”53  
 

2.6. Personal  Identity  of  Jesus  

“Who  is  Jesus?”  is  a  difficult  proposition  to  answer.  Panikkar  says  what  John  the  
Baptist  asked  Jesus  “Are  you  the  one  who  is  to  come  or  are  we  to  expect  some  other?”  is  
a  question  relating  to  the  identity  of  his  person  in  relation  to  what  he  is  doing.  Panikkar  
opines  that  the  question  of  ‘who’  of  Jesus  cannot  be  individualized  by  mere  ‘here  or  
there’  but  he  is  constantly  the  ‘coming  one.’54  The  answer  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  is  an  
appropriate  one  because  according  to  Panikkar  the  whole  interest  was  not  centred  on  
the  individual  but  on  what  Jesus  performs.  He  is  also  aware  of  the  fact  that  for  
Christians  the  question  of  person  is  unavoidable.  It  is  for  the  Christian  proclamation  
that  the  question  of  the  personal  identity  of  Jesus  remains  crucial.  Christian  tradition  
and  Scripture  amply  makes  it  clear  that  only  in  this  one  name  is  there  salvation.55  
It  is  important  to  know  who  or  what  this  name  is.  For  Panikkar  this  name,  which  
saves,  is  the  real  symbol.  He  opines,  “It  is  a  symbol,  i.e.,  the  very  ‘thing’  as  it  appears  
and  is  in  the  world  of  our  experience.”56  Parappally  says,  of  Panikkar’s  idea,  
A  pure  thing  does  not  exist  and  not  can  exist  without  a  name.  Since  any  name  with  a  
meaning  has  an  ontonomic  constitution,  it  is  neither  purely  subjective  nor  objective.  The  
name  is  real  symbol  because  it  is  thrown  between  subject  and  object.  If  there  is  salvation  
in  ‘no  other  name,’  this  is  to  affirm  that  only  through  the  reality  intended  by  this  name  is  
there  salvation.  It  also  implies  that  this  reality  can  be  experienced  by  people  having  

                                                                                               
52  Raimundo  Panikkar,  "ʺThe  Meaning  of  Christ'ʹs  Name  in  the  Universal  Economy  of  Salvation,"ʺ  in  
Evangelization,  Dialogue  and  Development,  ed.  M.  Dhavamony(Rome:  Documenta  Missionalia,  1972),  205.  
53  Ibid.  

54  Ibid.,  195.  

55  Cf.  Acts  4:11.  

56  Panikkar,  "ʺThe  Meaning  of  Christ'ʹs  Name  in  the  Universal  Economy  of  Salvation,"ʺ  197.  
 other  world-­‐‑views,  cultures  and  religious  traditions  which  have  another  meaningful  
name  for  this  reality  which  for  Christians  is  constituted  by  no  other  name  than  that  of  
Jesus.57  
 
Panikkar  further  argues  that  the  answer  of  Peter  to  Jesus  that  “You  are  the  
Messiah,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,”  
[I]s  a  perfect  answer  in  the  context.  But  he  asks  how  can  we  translate  this  confessional  
statement  in  the  way  a  Christian  understands  it  into  the  Indian  context,  where  there  is  
no  expectation  of  a  Messiah  and  a  strong  belief  that  all  are  sons  [sic]  of  the  living  God?58  
 
He  further  asks  that  how  can  a  people  whose  world-­‐‑view  is  different  from  the  
Semitic  world-­‐‑view  share  a  confessional  statement  imposed  on  them.  Do  they  need  to  
undergo  circumcision  of  their  mind?  When  on  the  pagan  church  circumcision  was  
imposed  the  Jerusalem  church  rejected  it.  It  must  be  admitted  that  the  affirmations,  
which  we  consider  universal,  may  be  far  from  being  universal,  acceptable  and  
understandable  to  all  cultures.  Panikkar  is  of  the  opinion  that  if  Christ  is  to  be  
intelligible  to  various  cultures  other  than  the  Semitic  culture  then  it  has  to  be  really  
translated  not  transliterated.59    
Panikkar  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  principle  of  individuation  is  not  useful  in  
understanding  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ.  Because  in  his  person  he  is  not  among  many,  
and  so  the  principle  of  singularity  cannot  be  really  applied  to  him.  The  principle  of  
individuality  would  refer  to  what  makes  Jesus,  Jesus  or  the  ‘what’  of  Jesus  or  the  thing-­‐‑
in-­‐‑itself,  but  this  will  not  answer  the  question  of  ‘who’  Jesus  is  or  his  identity  as  a  living  
person.60  Parappally  clarifies,  
Panikkar  is  not  saying  that  one  cannot  distinguish  Jesus  as  a  historical  figure  from  James  
or  John.  But  in  the  traditional  theology,  Christ  is  not  a  single  individual  in  the  sense  of  
other  historical  personages,  simply  a  member  of  the  species.61  
 
Panikkar  says,  “Christ  has  human  nature  indeed,  he  is  Man  but  he  is  not  a  
human  person.  He  is  a  divine  person,  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity  having  assumed  

                                                                                               
57  Parappally,  Emerging  Trends  in  Indian  Christology,  132-­‐‑33.  
58  Ibid.,  133.  
59  Ibid.  

60  Panikkar,  "ʺThe  Meaning  of  Christ'ʹs  Name  in  the  Universal  Economy  of  Salvation,"ʺ  207.  

61  Parappally,  Emerging  Trends  in  Indian  Christology,  134.  

human  nature.”62  Taking  cue  from  Chalcedon  Panikkar  explains  that  one  can  argue  that  
Christ  assumed  human  nature  as  a  whole  by  assuming  a  human  nature,  the  human  
nature  of  the  man  Jesus,  whose  human  person  was  subsumed  by  the  divine  person  of  
the  Logos.63  He  also  says,  “In  this  context  Christ  is  man  but  not  one  man,  a  single  
individual;  he  is  the  divine  person,  incarnated,  a  divine  person  in  hypostatic  union  with  
human  nature.”64  But  Christ’s  presence  for  the  believer  is  the  divine  presence.  Panikkar  
do  admits  that  if  we  push  this  too  far  then  this  can  lead  to  Docetism  or  dis-­‐‑
incarnationalism.  He  affirms  that  as  Christians  we  need  to  affirm  the  living  Christ  of  
Christian  faith  who  is  present  in  the  sacrament  and  in  others,  who  transcends  time.65  
This  he  insists  because  if  the  principle  of  singularity  cannot  be  applied  to  Jesus,  because  
he  is  not  simply  a  numerical  exemplar  of  a  species  of  human  mortals,  then  he  admits  
too  that  Christ’s  divinity  is  defended  but  his  true  humanity  is  imperilled.  If  we  insist  on  
that  the  humanness  of  Jesus  has  to  be  defended,  this  is  to  insist  that  the  man  Jesus  has  
something  peculiar,  which,  while  not  diminishing  his  humanness  transcends  it  in  such  a  
way  as  to  make  possible  a  sui  generis  relationship  with  him.  This  uniqueness  of  Jesus  
according  to  Panikkar  is  the  very  negation  of  singularity  and  individuality.  
The  problem  Panikkar  faces  in  understanding  Jesus  is  how  one  can  encounter  
him  as  true  God  and  true  human.  He  applies  the  concept  of  personhood,  which  is  a  
radical  relationship  in  which  the  inquirer  himself/herself  is  involved.  No  one  can  ask  
who  Jesus  is  without  first  asking  his/her  relationship  with  Jesus.  The  living  Christ,  
which,  Panikkar  affirms  and  also  asks  Christians,  to  affirm  can  be  discovered  only  in  
this  relation  between  the  inquirer  and  Jesus.  Since  no  one  can  say  “Jesus  is  Lord  except  
in  the  Holy  Spirit”  (1  Cor.  12:3),  the  real  ‘who’  can  be  experienced  through  the  influence  
of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  love.  In  this  way,  one  can  discover  Jesus  both  as  an  individual  
and  a  person.  Panikkar  affirms,  “The  one  who  we  seek  in  Jesus  is  the  risen  one  whom  
men  [sic]  crucified  and  whom  God  made  Lord  and  Anointed.”66  So  for  Panikkar  the  
Jesus  of  the  Christian  faith  is  the  Risen  Lord  and  does  not  mean  exclusively  the  
historical  Jesus,  the  Christ  whom  a  Christian  believer  experiences  in  faith.  He  also  says,  

                                                                                               
62  Panikkar,  "ʺThe  Meaning  of  Christ'ʹs  Name  in  the  Universal  Economy  of  Salvation,"ʺ  205.  
63  Raimundo  Panikkar,  "ʺThe  Relation  of  Christians  to  their  Non-­‐‑Christian  Surroundings,"ʺ  in  Christian  
Revelation  and  World  Religions,  ed.  Josef  Neuner(London:  Burns  &  Oates,  1967),  163.  
64  Panikkar,  "ʺThe  Meaning  of  Christ'ʹs  Name  in  the  Universal  Economy  of  Salvation,"ʺ  205.  

65  Ibid.,  207.  

66  Ibid.,  208.  
 The  word  Jesus  has  two  basically  different  meanings:  one  as  historical  category  and  
another  as  personal  category.  The  former  is  reached  by  means  of  historical  identification,  
which  permits  us  to  speak  about  Jesus  and  about  the  beliefs  Christians  have  in  and  
through  him.  The  latter  is  reached  by  means  of  personal  identity  and  allows  us  to  
discover  him  a  ‘part’  or  rather  pole  of  our  personal  being,  as  one  of  the  many  traits  that  
make  our  person.67  
 
In  his  unique  way  he  says,  “Christ  is  the  Lord  but  the  Lord  is  not  only  Jesus.”68  
By  saying  it  Panikkar  is  trying  to  overcome  the  limitations  of  the  understanding  of  
Christ  in  the  historical  category.  He  is  of  the  opinion  that  if  Christ  is  understood  only  in  
terms  of  historical  category  as  a  great  human  in  history  then  he  will  only  remain  there  
and  one  would  not  be  moved  to  any  personal  relationship  with  Jesus.  He  says,  “Jesus  
will  appear  as  a  historically  relevant  figure  of  the  past,  with  a  still  uncommon  influence  
on  the  present,  but  the  only  point  of  reference  will  be  his  historical  coordinates  and  his  
impact  on  the  lives  of  other  men  [sic].”69  
This  approach  of  Panikkar  to  understand  Jesus  beyond  the  historical  categories  
takes  us  to  his  understanding  on  Trans-­‐‑historical  Christ.    
 

2.7. Trans-­‐‑historical  Christ  and  Historical  Jesus  

The  fundamental  Christian  confession  is  that  Word  became  flesh.  Jesus  of  the  
Christian  believer  is  the  Risen  Christ.  This  Christ  cannot  be  pointed  out  exclusively  in  
the  outer  world  of  history  or  in  the  inner  world  of  one’s  world  view  and  beliefs.  
In  the  encounter  with  Hinduism,  which  sees  history  as  transitory  or  
impermanent  and  asserts  that  historical  dimension  is  not  everything  that  belongs  to  
reality,  Panikkar  emphasizes  the  trans-­‐‑historical  dimension  of  Christ.70  He  is  of  the  
opinion  that  in  the  context  of  Hinduism,  which  gives  more  validity  to  the  trans-­‐‑
historical  dimension  of  reality  than  historical,  the  emphasis  must  be  on  the  trans-­‐‑
historical  dimension  of  Christ  if  the  proclamation  of  Christ  has  to  be  relevant  and  
meaningful.71  He  is  of  the  opinion  that  any  Christological  formulations  in  the  Asian  

                                                                                               
67  Ibid.,  212.  
68  Quoted  in  Parappally,  Emerging  Trends  in  Indian  Christology,  136-­‐‑37.  
69  Panikkar,  "ʺThe  Meaning  of  Christ'ʹs  Name  in  the  Universal  Economy  of  Salvation,"ʺ  212.  

70  Parappally,  Emerging  Trends  in  Indian  Christology,  137-­‐‑38.  

71  Panikkar,  Myth,  Faith  and  Hermeneutics.  Cross-­‐‑Cultural  Studies,  100.  

context  to  claim  universality  cannot  limit  itself  to  the  historical  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  If  
Christ  is  proclaimed  only  as  Jesus  of  Nazareth  the  emphasis  would  be  on  the  
particularity  which  cannot  claim  universality  because  historicity  is  only  one  aspect  of  
reality.  In  this  sense  Panikkar’s  Christology  is  an  emphasis  on  the  concreteness  of  
Christ,  which  does  not  destroy  his  universality  because  the  reality  of  Christ  is  
experienced  in  the  personal  experience  of  his  uniqueness.72  He  argues  that  if  Jesus’  
particularity  is  emphasized  then  Jesus  Christ  would  be  seen  as  one  among  many  
saviours,  an  avatāra.  This  he  feels  that  go  against  the  fundamental  Christian  teaching  
that  God  is  revealed  fully,  finally,  absolutely,  and  uniquely  in  Christ  Jesus.  Panikkar  
affirms  that  only  concreteness  can  safeguard  universality  of  the  Christian  faith  and  the  
uniqueness  of  Christ.  If  we  insist  only  on  the  historical  existence  of  Jesus  Christ  it  is  
difficult  to  explain  his  uniqueness  or  universality.73  For  a  Christian  believer  who  
encounters  the  risen  Christ  in  faith  cannot  but  identify  him  with  the  historical  Jesus.  
That  is  the  guarantee  that  the  Person  who  enters  into  the  very  structure  of  his  being  had  
a  human  existence  at  a  particular  time  of  history.  But  then  the  believer  knows  that  it  
was  a  limited  existence  even  though  it  was  an  important  event  that  God  became  a  
human.  The  Christ  of  the  believer’s  existential  and  personal  experience  transcends  the  
historical  constraints  and  limitations.  Using  the  Eucharist  as  an  example  for  the  
presence  of  Christ  Panikkar  maintains  that  the  real  living  Christ  one  encounters  in  
communion  is  not  the  historical  existence  of  Jesus.  
He  argues  further  that  whole  Christ  is  historical  and  trans-­‐‑historical,  pre-­‐‑existent,  
historically  existed  at  a  particular  place,  time  and  culture.  He  is  the  living  one  who  can  
be  encountered  in  the  sacraments,  in  all  human  beings  especially  among  marginalized.  
This  person  who  makes  the  human,  the  divine  and  the  cosmic  communion  possible  
cannot  be  thought  of  only  in  spatio-­‐‑temporal  categories.  It  is  true  that  it  is  in  Jesus  of  
Nazareth  one  encounters  Christ,  but  the  Christ  of  the  Christian  believer  transcends  the  
historical  Jesus  of  Nazareth.    
 
 
 

                                                                                               
72  Raimundo  Panikkar,  The  Unknown  Christ  of  Hinduism.  Towards  an  Ecumenical  Christophany,  Revised  and  
enlarged  ed.  (Bangalore:  Asian  Trading  Corporation,  1982),  21.  
73  Raimundo  Panikkar,  "ʺThe  Invisible  Harmony:  A  Universal  Theory  of  Religion  or  a  Cosmic  Confidence  

in  Reality?,"ʺ  in  Towards  a  Universal  Theology  of  Religions,  ed.  Leonard  Swidler,  Faith  Meets  Faith  Series  
(Maryknoll,  New  York:  Orbis  Books,  1987),  140.  
2.8. Relation  between  Christianity  and  Hinduism  

As  noted  earlier  that  Panikkar’s  Christology  develops  in  the  interaction  between  
Hinduism  and  Christianity.  Therefore,  it  is  important  for  us  to  look  briefly  the  way  he  
sees  the  relation  between  these  two  living  traditions.  The  relation  between  Christianity  
and  Hinduism  is  influenced  by  the  differences  of  cultures,  Western  and  Indian.  
Panikkar  is  of  the  opinion  that  Western  culture  is  based  on  the  principle  of  contradiction  
while  the  Indian  principle  is  based  on  the  principle  of  identity.  As  a  consequence,  
duality,  multiplicity  of  finite  beings,  exclusion  of  the  sphere  of  infinity,  a  pyramidal  
concept  of  being  in  which  God  is  at  the  top,  and  an  either/or  attitude  in  the  sphere  of  
thought  characterize  the  Western  outlook.  The  identity  of  the  self  with  the  Absolute,  
multiplicity  true,  only  in  thought  but  not  real,  “not  only  but  also  approach”  in  the  
sphere  of  thinking  mark  the  Indian  approach.74  
The  greatness  of  the  Western  spirit  lies  in  its  sharpness  of  thought;  meticulous  
application  of  the  principle  of  contradiction,  analysis,  making  distinction  and  drawing  
conclusions,  whereas  the  genius  of  the  Indian  spirit  lies  in  its  power  to  synthesize,  its  
concern  for  the  whole.  Western  philosophy  searches  for  “the  specific”  in  creation  but  
Indian  philosophy  looks  for  “the  common  bond”  that  unites  the  Creator  and  creation.75  
It  is  in  the  context  of  these  cultural  differences  that  Panikkar  sees  the  relation  between  
Christianity  and  Hinduism.  
 
2.8.1. Christianity  as  fulfilment  of  Hinduism  

Panikkar  is  of  the  opinion  that  “the  proclamation  of  the  Gospel  is  not  the  
preaching  of  a  doctrine  or  the  teaching  of  a  moral  law  or  making  propaganda  for  a  
Church,  but  the  proclamation  of  the  name  of  Christ,  of  salvation,  of  the  divinization  of  
man  [sic].”76  Christianity  in  India  should  not  be  an  imported  highly  developed  religion  
but  Hinduism  converted  to  Christ,  Hinduism  that  has  passed  through  the  mystery  of  
death  and  resurrection,  in  substance  the  old  Hinduism  but  renewed  and  transformed  

                                                                                               
74  Quoted  in  Antony  Mookenthottam,  Indian  Theological  Tendencies:  Approaches  and  Problems  for  Further  
Research  as  Seen  in  the  Works  of  Some  Leading  Indian  Theologians  (Berne,  Switzerland:  Peter  Lang,  1978),  69-­‐‑
70.  
75  Ibid.,  70.  

76  Raymond  Panikkar,  Kerygma  und  Indien  zur  heilsgeschichtlichen  Begengung  mit  Indien  (Hamburg:  

Bergstedt,  1967),  47.  Quoted  in  Mookenthottam,  Indian  Theological  Tendencies:  Approaches  and  Problems  for  
Further  Research  as  Seen  in  the  Works  of  Some  Leading  Indian  Theologians,  71.  
like  the  risen  Christ.77  He  says,  “The  church  brings  every  true  and  genuine  religion  to  its  
fulfilment  through  a  process  of  death  and  resurrection.  The  deep  meaning  of  conversion  
is  this:  True  Christianity  is  the  fulfilment  of  every  religion  through  conversion.”78  
According  to  Panikkar,  Christ  came  not  to  establish  a  religion,  much  less  a  new  religion  
but  to  fulfil  every  justice  and  to  bring  every  religion  to  fulfilment.79    
 
2.8.2. ‘Unknown  Christ’  –  the  meeting  place  of  Hinduism  and  Christianity  

In  Hinduism  there  is  a  living  Presence  of  that  Mystery  which  Christians  call  
Christ.  The  Presence  does  not  necessarily  imply  historical  presence.  Christians  should  
find  no  difficulty  in  admitting  this,  for  they  recognize  the  same  truth  in,  precisely,  the  
Eucharist,  which  celebrates  Christ’s  real  presence  without  identifying  it  with  his  
historical  reality.  To  put  it  bluntly,  Christians  do  not  eat  the  proteins  of  Jesus  when  they  
receive  the  Eucharist.  The  Western  world  is,  by  and  large,  influenced  by  an  exaggerated  
historicism,  as  though  historicity  were  the  sole  component  of  reality.80  
He  makes  an  interesting  observation  that  Christians  often  think  that  Christ  is  the  
fulfiller  of  all  religions  and  is  the  expectation  of  all  people,  but  this  idea  should  not  
overshadow  the  truth  that  Christ  is  not  only  at  the  end  but  also  at  the  beginning.81  “He  
could  be  not  be  the  Omega  of  everything  if  he  were  not  also  the  Alpha.”82  He  also  says,  
“He  is  the  ‘Principle’  that  spoke  to  Men  [sic]83  and  was  already  at  work  before  Abraham.  
He  was  present  in  the  stone  that  Moses  struck  so  unbelievingly,  and  he  acted  in  Moses  
himself  when  he  chose  to  share  the  life  of  his  people.  He  may  have  been  called  by  many  
names,  but  his  presence  and  activity  were  always  there.  The  encounter  is  not  an  

                                                                                               
77  Panikkar,  Kerygma  und  Indien  zur  heilsgeschichtlichen  Begengung  mit  Indien,  48-­‐‑49.  Quoted  in  
Mookenthottam,  Indian  Theological  Tendencies:  Approaches  and  Problems  for  Further  Research  as  Seen  in  the  
Works  of  Some  Leading  Indian  Theologians,  71.  
78  Quoted  in  Mookenthottam,  Indian  Theological  Tendencies:  Approaches  and  Problems  for  Further  Research  as  

Seen  in  the  Works  of  Some  Leading  Indian  Theologians,  71.  
79  Ibid.  

80  Panikkar,  The  Unknown  Christ  of  Hinduism.  Towards  an  Ecumenical  Christophany,  2.  

81  Ibid.  

82  Ibid.  

83  Panikkar  has  interesting  take  on  the  use  of  the  ‘sexist’  term  Man.  He  writes,  “Two  reasons  compel  me  to  

write  Man  with  a  capital  letter:  a)  to  indicate  that  it  means  the  human  being  in  its  totality  and  thus  
includes  the  male  and  the  female;  and  b)  to  imply  that  Man  is  an  irreducible  reality  standing  side  by  side  
–  with  all  necessary  ontological  distinctions  –  with  God  and  the  world.”  Ibid.,  ix.    
ideological  one,  but  takes  place  in  the  deepest  recess  of  reality  –  in  what  Christian  
tradition  calls  the  Mystery.”84  
He  also  says,  “I  need  [to]  hardly  add  that  Christ  will  never  be  totally  known  on  
earth,  because  that  would  amount  to  seeing  the  Father  whom  nobody  can  see.”85  He  
further  states  that,”  It  was  even  good  that  Christ  disappeared  and  went  away;  otherwise  
Men  [sic]  would  have  made  him  a  king,  or  a  God.”86  
He  is  also  very  clear  in  his  assertion  by  what  he  means  by  Christ.  He  says,  
I  have  tried  to  show  …  that  though  a  Christian  believes  that  ‘Jesus  is  the  Christ’  as  more  
than  an  abstract  affirmation,  i.e.  as  an  expression  of  faith,  this  sentence  is  not  identical  to  
‘the  Christ  is  Jesus.’  Similarly,  I  have  maintained  that  the  assertion  ‘Christ  is  the  Lord’  
cannot  simply  be  reversed.  It  is  not  necessary,  in  fact,  that  the  Lord  be  named  Christ  or  
acknowledged  by  this  title,  because  the  saving  name  of  Christ  is  a  supername,  above  
every  name.87  
 
Further  he  says,  “The  Christian  affirms  that  ‘Jesus  is  the  Christ’  and  that  ‘Christ  
is  the  Lord.’  Jesus,  who  is  the  Christ  for  Christians,  is  more  –  but  not  less  –  than  Jesus  of  
Nazareth,  prior  to  his  resurrection.”88  But  he  maintains  that,  
The  Christian,  however,  cannot  say  that  ‘Christ  is  only  Jesus,’  philosophically,  because  
the  is  does  not  need  to  mean  is-­‐‑only  and,  theologically,  because  in  fact  the  risen  Jesus  is  
more  than  the  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  which  is  only  a  practical  identification,  different  from  
personal  identity.89    
 
In  another  place  he  says,  “Though  Christ  is  the  Mystery  in  the  sense  that  to  see  
Christ  is  to  reach  the  Mystery,  still  the  Mystery  cannot  be  totally  identified  with  Christ.  
Christ  is  but  one  aspect  of  the  Mystery  as  a  whole,  even  though  he  is  the  Way  when  we  
are  on  that  way.”90  He  also  says,  “The  historical  name  Christ  should  not  be  confined  to  
the  thus-­‐‑named  historical  Jesus  hardly  needs  mentioning  here.”91  
He  writes,  

                                                                                               
84  Ibid.,  3.  
85  Ibid.,  8.  
86  Ibid.,  8-­‐‑9.  

87  Ibid.,  14.  

88  Ibid.  

89  Ibid.  

90  Ibid.,  24-­‐‑25.  

91  Ibid.,  27.  
 The  bold  Christian  claim  is  that  in  the  historical  unfolding  of  God’s  revelation  there  is  a  
kind  of  pluralistic  continuity  held  together  by  what  they  call  Christ.  Thus  the  existential  
dharma  of  Hinduism  belongs  to  what  Christians  call  the  ‘economy  of  salvation.’  The  
Christians  believes  that  God,  who  has  spoken  through  the  prophets  and  the  rishis  
(sages),  has  sent  once  for  all  his  living  and  personal  Word  –  one  with  him  –  to  fulfil  all  
justice,  all  dharmas.92  
 
He  also  writes,    
Christians  have  tended  to  interpret  Christ  only  in  their  own  terms.  Or  perhaps  we  
should  say,  rather,  that  the  Christian  context  (first  Judaism,  then  European  religions,  
followed  by  scientific  cosmologies  which  culminated  in  the  myth  of  history)  has  been  
generally  taken  to  be  the  universal  human  texture.  Other  expressions  of  the  human  and  
religious  phenomenon  have  scarcely  been  taken  seriously.  When  Christians  were  
confronted  with  a  fact  outside  their  horizon,  they  were  tempted  to  close  ranks  in  a  
gesture  of  exclusiveness.93          
 
To  overcome  the  deep-­‐‑rooted  misunderstanding  arising  out  of  mutual  
exclusiveness  of  various  religions  he  says  that  one  would  have  to  analyse  the  different  
approaches  to  the  Centre  from  which  all  is  sustained  and  which  is  also  the  key  to  
intelligibility.94  He  argues  that  the  Western  Christianity  with  its  theistically  charged  
language  has  identified  its  centre  with  the  historical  Jesus.  For  Hinduism  it  is  Brahman,  
Atman,  vāc,  bindu  and  other  symbols  of  the  Absolute  according  to  different  contexts.95    
He  also  says,  
The  predominantly  Semitic  mentality  of  Christian  theology  will  reach  the  intelligibility  
of  the  ultimately  ungraspable  Mystery  ascending  to  it  from  its  concrete  and  visible  
manifestation:  Jesus  Christ.  Thus,  once  the  identification  is  made,  it  will  with  great  
difficulty  proceed  in  the  opposite  direction;  if  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Mystery,  any  other  real  
name  or  real  manifestation  of  the  Mystery,  any  other  real  name  or  real  manifestation  of  
the  Mystery  will  appear  inadequate  because  it  contradicts  the  Christian  understanding.96    
 

                                                                                               
92  Ibid.,  50-­‐‑51.  
93  Ibid.,  51.  
94  Ibid.  

95  Ibid.  

96  Ibid.,  52.  
 He  thinks  it  is  a  major  obstacle  when  Christianity  identifies,  with  necessary  
qualifications,  Christ  with  Jesus,  the  son  of  Mary.97  He  further  argues  that,  “If  Christ  is  
the  point  of  contact,  yet  only  Christians  can  fully  accept  his  necessary  identity  with  
Jesus,  we  cannot  hope  for  a  very  fruitful  dialogue.”98    
 
3. Christological  formulations  in  the  writings  of  Panikkar:  A  Review  

Christological  thoughts  are  so  important  in  the  life  and  thoughts  of  Panikkar  that  
it  makes  up  the  major  component  in  his  theology.  Interestingly  it  is  his  Christological  
treatises  in  The  Unknown  Christ  of  Hinduism  that  made  him  so  familiar  in  the  Christian  
theological  circle  and  put  him  in  the  category  of  leading  Indian  Christian  thinker.  His  
latest  work:  The  Fullness  of  Man.  A  Christophany  is  also  on  Christology.  Parappally  
rightly  states:  “One  of  the  greatest  contributions  of  Raimon  Panikkar  to  the  humanity,  
according  to  me,  is  his  insight  into  the  Mystery  of  Christ,  which  is  at  the  same  time  an  
insight  into  the  mystery  of  humans  and  their  world.”99  However,  it  is  always  hinged  to  
his  pluralistic  and  Cosmotheandric100  vision.  
Panikkar’s  program  is  to  revise  Christology101  because  he  finds  the  present  day  
Christology  to  be  deficient  especially  those  in  the  context  of  contemporary  world  
religions.  His  major  contest  would  be  that  Christology  as  prevalent  today  has  taken  
shape  exclusively  in  the  Western  context.  102  His  Christophany  is  inter-­‐‑cultural,  and  
inter-­‐‑religious.  
                                                                                               
97  Ibid.,  57.  
98  Ibid.  
99  Jacob  Parappally,  "ʺFrom  Christology  to  Christophany:  Panikkar'ʹs  Liberating  Vision  of  Christ,"ʺ  in  

Raimon  Panikkar:  Being  Beyond  Borders;  A  Commemorative  Volume,  ed.  Johnson  J.  Puthenpurackal(Bangalore  
&  Eluru:  ATC  &  ACPI,  2012),  566.  
100  In  an  interview  he  explains  what  Cosmotheandric  Principle  is.  It  is  in  which  what  is  divine,  what  is  

human  and  what  is  earthly  are  the  three  irreducible  dimensions,  which  constitute  what  is  real.  These  
three  parts  are  not  juxtaposed  simply  by  chance,  but  they  are  essentially  related  and  together  constitute  
the  Whole.  They  are  parts  because  they  are  not  the  whole,  but  they  are  not  parts,  which  can  be  separated  
from  the  whole.  http://www.share-­‐‑international.org/ARCHIVES/religion/rl_cfnew-­‐‑innocence.htm  
(accessed  April  2,  2008)  
101  Raimundo  Panikkar,  "ʺPresent-­‐‑Day  University  Education  and  World  Cultures,"ʺ  in  Asian  Cultural  

Studies(Mitaka,  Tokyo:  International  Christian  University,  Institute  of  Asian  Cultural  Studies,  1993),  196.  
102  Raimundo  Panikkar,  "ʺThe  New  Role  of  Christian  Universities  in  Asia,"ʺ  in  Asian  Cultural  Studies(Mitaka,  

Tokyo:  International  Christian  University,  Institute  of  Asian  Cultural  Studies,  1993),  173-­‐‑174.  Cf.  
Raimundo  Panikkar,  "ʺThe  Christian  Challenge  for  the  Third  Millennium,"ʺ  in  Christian  Mission  and  
Interreligious  Dialogue,  ed.  Paul  Mojzes  and  Leonard  Swidler(Lewiston/Qwenston/Lampster:  The  Edwin  
Mellen  Press,  1990),  114-­‐‑115.  
3.1. Christology  as  Christophany  

Panikkar  presents  Christ  with  the  help  of  Vedanta  thought,  relating  Trinitarian  
mystery  in  the  light  of  Advaita.103  Christ  is  the  living  symbol  for  the  totality  of  reality;  the  
Divine  principle;  the  crystallization  point  around  which  the  human,  the  divine  and  the  
material  can  grow.  He  uses  mostly  traditional  Christian  categories  but  interprets  them  
with  the  intuition  of  philosophico-­‐‑religious  thought  patterns  of  Hinduism  and  
especially  Vedanta.104  The  theandric  nature  of  his  Christology  points  to  the  fact  that  his  
Christology  is  shaped  against  the  background  of  Hindu  speculation  that  has  little  
regard  for  the  empirical  world.105  For  him  Christology  of  today’s  context  does  not  do  
justice  to  the  present  day  scenario.  In  his  own  words  he  says,  “a  Christology  deaf  to  the  
cries  of  men  and  especially  women  today  would  be  incapable  of  uttering  any  ‘word  of  
God’  whatsoever.”106  He  finds  the  traditional  Christology  to  be  inadequate  in  facing  the  
realities  of  today.  He  proposes  to  replace  Christology  with  a  new  concept,  which  he  
calls  as  ‘Christophany.’107  Christophany  for  him  represent  a  Christian  self-­‐‑reflection  to  
be  worked  out  in  the  third  millennium.  He  wishes  to  avoid  any  universalistic  claim  in  
his  new  program  of  Christophany.  He  finds  Christophany108  more  profound  than  
Christology.  He  says,  
Christophany  intends  to  offer  an  image  of  Christ  that  all  people  are  capable  of  believing  
in,  especially  those  contemporaries  who,  while  wishing  to  remain  open  and  tolerant,  
think  they  have  no  need  to  either  diluting  their  ‘Christianity’  or  of  damaging  their  
fidelity  to  Christ.109  
 

                                                                                               
103  Raimundo  Panikkar,  The  Trinity  and  World  Religions.  Icon-­‐‑Person-­‐‑Mystery,  Inter-­‐‑Religious  Dialogue  
Series,  No.  4  (Bangalore/Madras:  CISRS/CLS,  1970),  45-­‐‑46,62.  
104  Parappally,  Emerging  Trends  in  Indian  Christology,  171.  

105  Panikkar,  The  Unknown  Christ  of  Hinduism.  Towards  an  Ecumenical  Christophany,  127-­‐‑128.  Robin  H.  S.  

Boyd,  India  and  the  Latin  Captivity  of  the  Church.  The  Cultural  Context  of  the  Gospel  (Cambridge:  Cambridge  
University  Press,  1974),  89.  Also  Boyd,  An  Introduction  to  Indian  Christian  Theology,  254.  
106  Raimon  Panikkar,  The  Fullness  of  Man:  A  Christophany,  trans.,  Alfred  DiLascia  (Delhi:  ISPCK,  2006),  5.  

107  Raimon  Panikkar,  "ʺA  Christophany  for  our  times,"ʺ  Theology  Digest  39,  no.  1  (Spring  1992):  3.  

108  The  whole  creation  is  a  ‘theophany’,  a  manifestation  of  God;  but  this  manifestation  takes  place  in  

Christ,  thus  the  whole  creation  becomes  a  ‘Christophany’,  a  manifestation  of  Christ.  Cf.  Bede  Griffiths,  
Christian  Ashram:  Essays  towards  a  Hindu-­‐‑Christian  Dialogue  (London:  Darton,  Longman  &  Todd,  1966),  
218-­‐‑219.  
109  Panikkar,  The  Fullness  of  Man:  A  Christophany,  9.  
 By  Christophany,  he  proposes  a  far  better  option  than  predominant  
interpretations  of  Christ  when  facing  the  challenges  of  the  contemporary  world.110  
Komulainen  opines  that  his  program  of  Christophany  seems  to  stand  for  religiosity  of  a  
higher  level  than  traditional  Christianity.111  Here  it  should  be  noted  that  Panikkar  sees  
Christophany  as  continuation  of  the  traditional  Christology  not  an  abrogation  of  it  by  
providing  it  with  new  prospects.  
 
For  Panikkar,  Christophany112  begins  with  a  critique  of  ‘traditional’  Christology.    
However,  it  is  not  just  a  total  rejection/negation  of  the  traditional  Christology,  but  
rather  he  takes  valuable  insights  from  it  and  moves  further  from  it  without  supplanting  
it.  
 
3.1.1.  Critique  of  Traditional  Christology  
Traditional  Christology113  was  an  interpretation  of  Christic  experience  
conditioned  by  the  life-­‐‑situation  of  those  who  interpreted  their  Christic  experience.  It  is  
unintelligible  outside  the  context  in  which  it  is  articulated.  More  often  such  a  
Christology  was  associated  with  the  western  colonialism  and  tended  to  propagate  a  
‘colonial’  Christ  that  was  and  is  detrimental  to  the  Christian  gospel.  A  forceful  
imposition  of  such  Christological  formulations  gave  rise  to  a  distorted  image  of  Christ.  
A  credible  image  of  Christ  is  to  be  open,  ecumenical  and  be  tolerant  at  the  same  time  
hinged  on  the  commitment  to  Christ.  
Panikkar  writes,  “in  fact,  from  the  Christian  perspective,  the  entire  modern  
problematic  concerning  inter-­‐‑cultural  and  inter-­‐‑religious  questions  hinges  upon  the  
vision  of  Christ.  Is  he  an  oriental  pantocrator?  A  western  divine  prophet?  The  private  of  
God  of  Christians?  The  universal  saviour?  A  man  for  others?”114    
For  Panikkar  Christology  would  be  a  systematic  reflection  on  the  mystery  of  
Christ.  However,  this  reflection  needs  to  transcend  all  categorizations  and  definitions.    
Traditional  Christologies  often  emerged  within  the  ecclesial  tradition  without  any  
dialogue  with  the  religious  traditions  as  if  they  did  not  matter.115  With  Christianity  

                                                                                               
110  Panikkar,  "ʺThe  Christian  Challenge  for  the  Third  Millennium,"ʺ  121f.  
111  Jyri  Komulainen,  An  Emerging  Cosmotheandric  Religion?  Raimon  Panikkar'ʹs  Pluralistic  Theology  of  Religions  
(Helsinki:  University  of  Helsinki,  2003),  117.  
112  Manifestation  of  Christ  to  human  consciousness;  the  maximal  actualization  of  our  true  identity,  an  

image  of  Christ  that  all  people  are  capable  of  believing  in  it;  Christophany  considers  the  other  religions  of  
the  world  as  loci  theologici.  D'ʹSa,  "ʺGlossary  of  Panikkarian  Ex-­‐‑Pressions,"ʺ  631.  
113  Traditional  Christology  emerged  in  the  context  of  a  ‘dialogue’  with  Judaism,  Greco-­‐‑Roman  world,  

German  mentality,  and  Islamic  culture.    

114  Panikkar,  "ʺA  Christophany  for  our  times,"ʺ  3.  

115  Parappally,  "ʺFrom  Christology  to  Christophany:  Panikkar'ʹs  Liberating  Vision  of  Christ,"ʺ  567.  
becoming  a  state  religion  during  the  Roman  Empire,  Christology  too  became  an  inner-­‐‑
ecclesial  affair  relevant  to  those  who  do  not  share  the  Judeo-­‐‑Christian  world  view.  Such  
a  Christology  has  narrowed  the  scope  of  its  relevance  to  the  wider  world  view.  It  is  in  
such  a  context  Panikkar  argues  for  a  Christophany  instead  of  a  Christology.  
Now,  his  Christophany  cannot  be  understood  without  considering  the  central  
question  of  Christology  –  the  identity  of  Jesus,  the  Christ.    
Christology  raises  the  fundamental  question,  “Who  is  Jesus  Christ?”  Panikkar  
opines  that  the  ‘Who’  of  Christ  cannot  be  individualized  by  mere  “here  or  there”  as  he  
is  constantly  ‘the  coming  one.’116  The  interest  is  focused  not  on  the  individual  but  on  
what  he  performs.  And  he  is  performing  his  messianic  function.  However,  one  cannot  
avoid  asking  question  about  his  identity,  his  personhood.  Christian  gospel  is  about  the  
communication  of  who  he  is.  Is  his  identity,  a  ‘name’  –  the  “name  above  all  name”?  A  
name,  “under  heaven  given  among  mortals  by  which  we  must  be  saved”  (Acts  4:12).  It  
is  not  a  nominalistic  label,  a  magical  formula  or  a  sign  but  a  real  symbol  that  saves.  
Panikkar  writes,  “It  is  a  symbol,  i.e.,  the  very  ‘thing’  as  it  appears  and  is  in  the  world  of  
our  experience.”117  As  noted  earlier,  the  name,  Jesus  is  the  symbol  of  the  reality  to  which  
it  point  towards.118  To  exist  is  to  have  a  name.  The  name  is  the  real  symbol  and  it  is  the  
‘middle-­‐‑point’  between  the  subject  and  the  object.  If  there  is  salvation  in  ‘no  other  
name,’  only  through  the  reality  intended  by  this  name  there  is  salvation.  Panikkar  is  of  
the  opinion  that,  this  reality  can  be  found/encountered  by  others  by  other  names  (of  the  
reality)  that  are  equally  meaningful  and  valid.  Whereas,  for  Christians,  there  is  ‘no  other  
name’  given  than  that  of  Jesus,  the  Christ.  It  is  not  the  name  that  is  important  but  the  
reality  that  it  intends  to  proclaim  and  points  to.  The  answer  of  Peter  “You  are  the  
Messiah,  the  Son  of  the  living  God”  (Matt.  16:16)  to  the  question  “Who  is  Jesus  Christ?”  
is  a  perfect  answer  in  the  context  in  which  the  question  is  raised.119  How  can  one  
translate  this  confessional  statement  into  the  Indian  context,  where  there  is  no  
expectation  of  a  Messiah  but  there  is  a  strong  belief  that  all  are  the  sons  and  daughters  
of  the  living  God?  Panikkar  would  raise  a  fundamental  question  that  how  a  Semitic  
world-­‐‑view  can  be  intelligible  to  those  who  are  outside  its  purview.  Any  answer  to  such  
a  fundamental  question  of  faith  is  to  be  translated  not  transliterated.  Panikkar  argues  
that  the  question  of  “Who  is  Jesus  of  Nazareth?”  is  to  be  answered  not  through  the  
principle  of  individuation  (what  individualizes  and  distinguishes  one  from  the  other)  
but  through  a  principle  of  identity.120  More  on  it  can  be  found  under  the  section  on  
Person  and  Individual  (2.5)  and  Personal  Identity  of  Jesus  (2.6).  

                                                                                               
116  Panikkar,  "ʺThe  Meaning  of  Christ'ʹs  Name  in  the  Universal  Economy  of  Salvation,"ʺ  195.  
117  Ibid.,  197.  
118  Cf.  Section  2.4.  

119  Panikkar,  "ʺThe  Relation  of  Christians  to  their  Non-­‐‑Christian  Surroundings,"ʺ  163.  

120  Parappally,  "ʺFrom  Christology  to  Christophany:  Panikkar'ʹs  Liberating  Vision  of  Christ,"ʺ  569.  
 In  his  christologizing  process,  Panikkar  is  aware  of  the  pluralistic  context  of  
India.  Rather,  it  the  context  that  decides  his  christologizing  process.  His  approach  is  to  
deepen  the  understanding  of  the  Mystery  of  the  Person  of  Christ  who  is  present  in  all  
authentic  traditions  because  he  is  the  Lord  of  everything  that  is  and  that  comes  into  
being.121  For  him,  traditional  Christology  with  its  focus  on  the  identification  of  who  Jesus  
is  rather  than  the  identity  of  Jesus  Christ  fails  to  deliver  in  a  religiously  and  culturally  
pluralistic  context  of  India.  It  is  this  context,  he  proposes  a  Christophany,  where  one  is  
enamoured  into  the  insight  of  the  mystery  of  oneself,  others,  world  and  God.  
 
3.1.2.  Christophany      
It  should  be  noted  here  that  Christophany  is  an  attempt  by  Panikkar  to  offer  a  
credible  figure  of  Christ  in  a  religiously  plural  context.  For  him  Christophany  
transcends  traditional  Christology  without  supplanting  it.  
For  him,  Christophany  is  the  disclosure  of  Christ  to  human  consciousness  and  
the  critical  reflection.  It  emphasizes  a  more  passive  attitude  of  receiving  the  impact  of  
Christ  over  against  a  more  aggressive  search  by  human  reason  for  intelligibility.  In  it,  
the  Christ  figure  is  integrated  into  the  cosmological  vision  along  with  similar  
homeomorphic122  equivalents  of  the  same  in  other  traditions.  Christophany  is  open,  
dialogical,  ecumenical,  and  tolerant.  It  is  the  epiphany  of  the  ‘Real,’  which  Christians  
call  Christ  whereas  the  others  can  call  with  other  equivalent  names.  It  is  the  “fruit  of  
dialogue  with  other  religions  as  much  as  an  interpretation  of  its  own  tradition  over  
against  a  modern  background.”123  Christophany  is  a  collective  attempt  of  Christians  and  
others  (along  with  other  religio-­‐‑cultural-­‐‑secular-­‐‑atheistic)  to  understand  the  figure  of  
Christ.  
Panikkar’s  Christophany  is  explained  in  nine  sutras124  (theses):125  
1.  Christ  is  the  Christian  symbol  for  the  Whole  of  Reality.  In  this  symbol  the  subject  and  
object,  interpreter  and  interpreted,  phenomenon  and  its  numenon126  inextricably  
unite.127  

                                                                                               
121  Ibid.,  573.  
122  The  role  a  function  has  in  one  system  is  equivalent  to  the  role  that  a  function  has  in  another  system;  the  
equivalence  is  not  between  two  roles  but  between  the  role  that  each  function  plays  in  its  respective  
system;  the  correlation  between  points  of  two  different  systems  so  that  a  point  in  one  system  corresponds  
to  a  point  in  the  other.  D'ʹSa,  "ʺGlossary  of  Panikkarian  Ex-­‐‑Pressions,"ʺ  636.  
123  Panikkar,  "ʺA  Christophany  for  our  times,"ʺ  5.  

124  Rules  or  aphorisms.  

125  Panikkar,  The  Fullness  of  Man:  A  Christophany,  143-­‐‑184.  

126  A  Greek  term  meaning  that  which  is  hidden  behind  the  appearance  (phainomenon);  beyond  sensible  

experience;  “that  which  is  thought;”  the  thing  in  itself.  Ibid.,  194.  
127  Panikkar,  "ʺA  Christophany  for  our  times,"ʺ  5.  
2.  The  Christian  Recognizes  Christ  In  and  Through  Jesus.  This  discovery  is  not  a  mere  
confession  but  the  existential  encounter  with  the  reality  that  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  
discloses.  Through  personal  experience  coupled  with  the  communities’  (church’s)  one  
encounters  Jesus,  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  Light  from  Light,  True  God  from  God.  
3.  The  Identity  of  Christ  is  not  the  same  as  His  Identification.  He  can  be  objectively  
identified  specific  to  a  time  and  context  but  that  cannot  reveal  his  identity,  which  can  be  
encountered  through  a  loving  relationship,  which  is  a  gift  from  above.  
4.  Christians  do  not  have  a  monopoly  on  the  knowledge  of  Christ.  Since  the  name  Jesus  
discloses  the  reality  behind  it  –  the  Christ,  in  a  pluralistic  context  other  such  names  of  
the  divine  too  can  reveal  various  facets  of  Christ.  The  mystery  of  Christ  therefore,  is  not  
a  monopoly  of  Christians.    
5.  Christophany  transcends  Tribal  and  Historical  Christology.  Traditional  Christology  
remained  a  tribal  Christology  because  it  did  not  take  into  consideration  in  its  
understanding  of  Christ  the  other  religious  experiences.  It  also  did  not  address  the  crisis  
threatening  the  human  existence  namely:  ecological  crisis,  poverty,  injustice,  
oppression,  wars,  religious  fundamentalism  and  communalism.  Christophany  on  the  
other  hand  is  an  approach  that  is  open  to  the  mystery  of  the  Christic  experiences  in  
other  religious  traditions  and  takes  into  account  seriously  the  crisis  facing  human  
existence.  Christophany  is  dialogical.  
6.  The  Protological,128  Historical,  and  Eschatological  Christ  is  a  unique  and  Selfsame  
Reality,  Distended  in  Time,  Extended  in  Space,  and  Intentional  in  Us.  This  sutra  
expresses  the  unity  of  Christ  as  creator,  redeemer,  and  glorifier.  Christophany  reveals  to  
us  the  threefold  tension  our  awareness  of  reality.  In  the  experience  of  temporal  realities  
we  get  a  hint  of  something  not  distended  or  timeless,  eternal.  In  the  experience  of  reality  
as  spatial  and  material  we  get  a  glimpse  of  something  more  than  matter,  i.e.,  Spirit.  
Now  human  experience  is  not  just  that  but  also  transcendent.  It  tends  towards  
something  beyond  us,  a  transcendence,  to  God.  Christophany  points  to  the  fact  that  
creation,  redemption  and  glorification  relate  to  the  mystery  of  Christ.  The  protological  
Christ129  is  the  same  as  the  historical  Christ  and  the  historical  Christ  cannot  be  separated  
from  the  Eucharistic  Christ  or  the  Risen  Christ.  In  the  same  way,  the  Christ  of  the  
Parousia  cannot  be  separated  from  the  Eucharistic  and  Risen  Christ.130  In  this  sense  
Christophany  helps  us  to  live  consciously  our  tempiternal  life,  the  fullness  of  a  life  that  
has  integrated  past,  present,  and  future  so  that  we  may  live  in  fullness  (John  10:10).131    

                                                                                               
128  Study  of  Origins.  
129  Pre-­‐‑existent  Christ.  
130  Parappally,  "ʺFrom  Christology  to  Christophany:  Panikkar'ʹs  Liberating  Vision  of  Christ,"ʺ  576.  

131  Panikkar,  The  Fullness  of  Man:  A  Christophany,  169.  

7.  The  Incarnation  as  Historical  Event  is  also  Inculturation.  For  Panikkar,  incarnation  is  
not  only  a  historical  event  but  also  a  cultural  event  intelligible  in  a  particular  cultural  
context.  He  writes,  
[I]t  does  not  simply  state  that  Christ’s  epiphanies  exhibit  many  aspects  and  that  they  are  
psychologically  and  historically  conditioned.  It  also  tells  us  that  incarnation  itself,  as  a  
historical  event,  has  taken  place  within  a  specific  cultural  milieu.  The  effect  is  twofold:  
the  incarnation  is  already  an  inculturation  and  can  therefore  be  received  only  within  a  
certain  culture.  At  the  same  time,  it  profoundly  transforms  the  culture  that  receives  it.  
The  Bethlehem  event  that  is  grafted  onto  Semitic  culture  changes  it  radically.132  
 
Outside  the  Semitic  culture,  the  incarnation’s  intelligibility  depends  on  its  trans-­‐‑
historical  value.  In  Hindu  India  the  experience  of  the  Christian  Christ  is  better  enacted  
by  the  sacrifice  of  the  Eucharist  than  by  the  narrative  of  Bethlehem.  This  sutra  also  
addresses  the  issue  of  history  as  understood  by  various  cultures.  Incarnation  is  an  
historical  event  happened  in  history  at  a  particular  time  and  context  but  it  is  a  
temporally  irretrievable  event  as  it  affects  human  being  who  cannot  be  reduced  to  a  
mere  historical  being.  Panikkar  further  clarifies,  “Christianity  is  a  historical  religion.  If  
we  abolish  history,  we  destroy  Christianity.  But  Christ,  the  Christ  in  whom  historical  
Christianity  claims  to  believe,  is  more  (not  less)  than  a  historical  reality,  in  the  sense  in  
which  Semitic  culture  has  understood  history.”133  Incarnation  is  already  an  inculturation  
in  a  particular  culture,  in  that  sense,  as  noted  above;  it  profoundly  transforms  the  
culture  that  receives  it.  Thus,  it  can  be  said  that  no  such  thing  exists  as  an  absolute  
Christophany;  because  “a  ‘chemically  pure’  Christology  from  which  we  can  deduce  
Christian  ideas  and  a  Christian  praxis  does  not  exist.”134  
8.  The  Church  is  considered  a  site  of  the  Incarnation.  For  Panikkar,  church  is  the  locus  
of  incarnation  and  also  the  locus  of  salvation.  The  nature  of  the  church  is  cosmic,  in  that  
sense  it  is  the  sacramentum  mundi  –  the  mystery  of  the  universe.  For  him,  the  Patristic  
ecclesiology  with  its  message  of  cosmic  relevance  is  the  way  one  needs  to  move  
forward.  Such  an  ecclesiology  prevents  us  from  a  microdoxical135  interpretation  of  the  
Church  reducing  it  to  an  official  institutionalized  Church  and  to  mere  historical  
phenomena.136  Church  is  the  place  where  humanity  and  the  entire  creation  can  find  the  
fullness  of  salvation;  because  it  is  here  they  find  the  mediator,  the  bond,  the  Christ.137  

                                                                                               
132  Ibid.,  174.  
133  Ibid.,  173.  
134  Ibid.,  175.  

135  “Microdoxy  is  the  identification  of  reality,  of  true  faith,  of  orthodoxy  with  a  certain  established  

conception  that  is  no  longer  open,  mysterious,  hidden.”  Microdoxy  means  the  desire  to  enclose  
orthodoxy  in  small  truths,  narrow  concepts,  refusing  to  open  oneself  to  deeper  interpretations.  
136  Parappally,  "ʺFrom  Christology  to  Christophany:  Panikkar'ʹs  Liberating  Vision  of  Christ,"ʺ  577.  

137  Panikkar,  The  Fullness  of  Man:  A  Christophany,  178.  

“The  Church  is  the  very  place  in  which  the  whole  universe  pulsates  until  its  final  
destiny.”138  Man  is  the  priest  or  the  mediator  in  this  cosmic-­‐‑divine  battle.  Christophany  
shows  us  our  role  in  the  universe  in  the  recapitulation  of  all  things  in  Christ  (Eph.  1:10).    
9.  Christophany  is  the  Symbol  of  the  Mysterium  Coniunctionis  of  Divine,  Human,  and  
Cosmic  Reality.  It  is  the  manifestation  of  the  mysterious  union  of  the  divine,  human,  
and  cosmic  dimension  of  reality.  In  Jesus  Christ  one  encounters  the  Father  as  well  as  the  
full  Man  and  the  cosmos.  Panikkar  calls  this  the  cosmotheandric  intuition.  He  writes,    
In  Jesus  Christ,  the  finite  and  infinite  meet.  In  him  the  human  and  the  divine  are  united.  
In  him  the  material  and  the  spiritual  are  one  –  to  say  nothing  of  masculine  and  feminine,  
high  and  low,  heaven  and  earth  and,  obviously,  the  historical  and  trans-­‐‑historical,  time  
and  eternity.139  
Further  he  maintains  that  the  meaning  of  Christophany  would  be  distorted  if  we  
separate  the  figure  of  Christ  from  the  Trinitarian  mystery.  He  writes,    
If  we  separate  Jesus  Christ  from  the  Trinity,  his  figure  loses  all  credibility.  He  would  
then  be  a  new  Socrates  or  any  other  great  prophet.  If  we  separate  Jesus  Christ  from  
humanity,  he  becomes  a  Platonic  ideal  of  perfection  –  frequently  an  instrument  for  
dominating  and  exploiting  others  by  becoming  a  God.  If  we  separate  his  humanity  from  
his  actual  historical  journey  on  this  earth  and  his  historical  roots,  we  turn  him  into  a  
mere  gnostic  figure  who  does  not  share  our  concrete  and  limited  human  condition.140  
 
One  notes,  Panikkar’s  Christophany  is  more  mystical  than  traditional  
Christology,  more  cosmological,  and  also  more  universal  in  the  respect  that  its  purview  
extends  outside  the  boundaries  of  Christendom.  It  also  embraces  “homeomorphic  
equivalents”141  in  other  religions.  It  should  also  be  noted  here  that  for  Panikkar,  Christ  
is,  integrated  into  a  cosmological  vision  in  his  Christophany.  
 
 
3.2. Hindu  influence  on  Panikkar’s  Christological  program    

One  of  the  fundamental  presuppositions  of  Panikkar’s  Christology  is  the  
supposition  that  the  Christian  concept  of  history  is  somewhat  alien  to  the  Indian  
                                                                                               
138  Ibid.  
139  Panikkar,  "ʺA  Christophany  for  our  times,"ʺ  20.  
140  Panikkar,  The  Fullness  of  Man:  A  Christophany,  184.  

141  Homeomorphic  equivalence  (literally,  ‘similar  forms’)  suggests  there  may  be  a  “correlation  of  

functions”  between  specific  belief  in  distinct  religions  or  cultures.  If  so,  the  correlation  cannot  be  imposed  
from  outside  but  needs  to  be  discovered  from  within  through  what  is  called  a  “topological  
transformation.”  http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ghall_panikkar.htm.  (accessed  November  
4,  2009).  Cf.  Ibid.,  169.  
mind.142  Panikkar  finds  that  Hinduism  and  most  of  the  Asian  religions  have  no  sense  of  
history.  For  these  religions  there  is  no  messianic  expectation  of  the  Mediator  acting  in  
history.143  Therefore,  according  to  Panikkar,  the  Jesus  of  history  has  no  relevance  for  the  
Asian  religions.144  He  begins  by  de-­‐‑emphasizing  the  historicity  of  Christ,  and  he  never  
finds  it  to  be  relevant  in  the  context  of  the  dialogue  with  religions.  Panikkar  
underscores  that,  
If  we  start  with  the  historicity  of  Christ,  essential  though  it  may  be,  we  are  liable  to  be  
gravely  misunderstood.  Not  only  is  the  Christian  concept  of  history  somewhat  alien  to  
the  Indian  mind,  but  such  a  concept  is  in  fact  a  posterior  to  the  Incarnation  of  Christ.  To  
admit  the  Christian  idea  of  history,  indispensible  though  it  may  be  for  an  understanding  
of  the  historical  Christ,  is  to  presuppose  the  Christian  concept  of  Christ.  We  should  not  
forget  that  the  first  philosophical  interpretation  of  Christ  begins  with  a  discourse  not  on  
the  ‘flesh’  but  on  the  ‘Logos’  that  became  ‘flesh.’  Most  philosophical  misunderstandings  
about  Christ  and  the  Incarnation,  from  the  side  of  Indian  philosophy,  would  disappear  if  
Christian  theology  tried  to  speak  of  Christ  in  a  way  that  might  make  sense  to  the  partner  
in  dialogue.145  
 
It  is  to  this  advaitic  philosophy  that  Panikkar  turns  to  construct  his  Christology.  
His  is  an  advaitic  Christ.  For  him  Advaita  is  far  more  important  to  him  than  being  just  an  
Indian  decoration.146  MacPherson  is  right  in  her  assertion  about  the  relationship  
Panikkar  has  with  advaita  Vedanta.  She  says,  
Panikkar’s  main  dialogue  partner  is  the  Advaita  Vedanta  tradition  as  he  develops  his  
concept  of  trinity.  He  searches  for  the  Trinity  within  the  Advaita  Vedanta  School  of  
Hinduism.  Although  he  proceeds  to  a  further  concept  of  Trinity  that  will  embrace  all  
religions,  he  never  lets  go  of  the  basic  tenets  of  the  Advaita  Vedanta  tradition.  It  becomes  
the  current  that  sweeps  him  even  beyond  the  world  religions  to  the  realm  of  the  secular  

                                                                                               
142  Panikkar,  The  Unknown  Christ  of  Hinduism.  Towards  an  Ecumenical  Christophany,  164.  
143  Cheriyan  Menacherry,  Christ:  The  Mystery  in  History.  A  Critical  Study  on  the  Christology  of  Raymond  
Panikkar  (Frankfurt  am  Main:  Peter  Lang,  1996),  211.  
144  “Panikkar  does  not  show  great  interest  in  the  historical  aspect  of  Christology.”  Antony  

Mookenthottam,  Towards  a  Theology  in  the  Indian  Context  (Madras:  CLS,  1980),  235.  Cf.  Mookenthottam,  
Indian  Theological  Tendencies:  Approaches  and  Problems  for  Further  Research  as  Seen  in  the  Works  of  Some  
Leading  Indian  Theologians,  72.  
145  Panikkar,  The  Unknown  Christ  of  Hinduism.  Towards  an  Ecumenical  Christophany,  164f.  Cf.  Raimundo  

Panikkar,  "ʺĪsvara  and  Christ  as  a  Philosophical  Problem,"ʺ  Religion  and  Society  VI,  no.  3  (October  1959):  8.  
146  Komulainen,  An  Emerging  Cosmotheandric  Religion?  Raimon  Panikkar'ʹs  Pluralistic  Theology  of  Religions,  

104.  
 sphere  without  his  ever  letting  go  of  the  Advaitin  tenet  of  Atman  (innermost  Self)  
equalling  Brahman  (God).147  
 
As  to  why  he  chose  it:  it  is  precisely  because  Advaita  answers  the  Indian  question,  
the  search  for  identity.  As  soon  as  one  follows  the  Indian  way  of  asking  questions:  what  
is  in  common?  Advaita  answers  in  a  sophisticated  way.  Furthermore  it  succeeds  in  
maintaining  the  unity,  the  basic  identity,  as  well  as  the  obvious  multiplicity  through  its  
system  of  different  levels  of  reality.148  
He  identified  a  problem  common  in  Advaita  Vedanta  as  well  as  in  scholastic  
Christian  theology:  how  is  it  possible  to  overcome  the  gulf  between  the  Absolute  and  
the  relative,  between  the  Creator  and  the  created,  between  the  real  and  illusory,  the  
infinite  and  the  finite,  the  unconditioned  and  the  contingent?149  
One  finds  an  affinity  between  the  Hindu  understanding  of  the  ‘Self’  as  atman  and  
Panikkar’s  Christology.  Panikkar’s  Christology  rests  on  his  understanding  of  ‘person’  
that  is  strongly  reminiscent  of  the  way  in  which  atman  is  understood  in  Advaita  
philosophy.150  Perhaps  Panikkar’s  Christology  could  be  interpreted  in  terms  of  atman.  
The  following  two  features  in  particular  seem  to  connect  Panikkar’s  understanding  of  
‘person’  with  the  advaitic  understanding  of  atman.  First,  atman  is  very  dynamic  and  
extensive,  transcending  the  universe.  Secondly,  despite  its  infiniteness,  atman  is  the  
centre  of  everything.  Therefore,  it  may  not  be  too  far-­‐‑reaching  a  conclusion  to  presume  
that  Panikkar’s  Christophany  had  taken  shape  under  the  influence  of  Advaita  
philosophy.151  
Even  on  the  advaitic  influence  on  Panikkar’s  Christology  there  are  differences  of  
opinions.  Mitra  opines  that  Panikkar  is  a  proponent  of  “integral  Advaita”  i.e.,  
combination  of  Sankara’s  kevala-­‐‑advaita  (unqualified  Advaita)  and  Ramanuja’s  vishist-­‐‑
advaita  (qualified  or  theistic  Advaita),  or,  in  more  popular  terms,  integrating  Advaita  and  

                                                                                               
147  Camilia  Gangasingh  MacPherson,  A  Critical  Reading  of  the  Development  of  Raimon  Panikkar'ʹs  Thought  on  
the  Trinity  (Lanham,  Maryland:  University  Press  of  America,  1996),  xiii.  
148  Komulainen,  An  Emerging  Cosmotheandric  Religion?  Raimon  Panikkar'ʹs  Pluralistic  Theology  of  Religions,  

107.  
149  Ibid.,  108.  

150  Panikkar,  "ʺThe  Invisible  Harmony:  A  Universal  Theory  of  Religion  or  a  Cosmic  Confidence  in  

Reality?,"ʺ  129-­‐‑130.  
151  Komulainen,  An  Emerging  Cosmotheandric  Religion?  Raimon  Panikkar'ʹs  Pluralistic  Theology  of  Religions,  

133.    
Bhakti.152  Boyd  regards  him  as  a  Christian  bhakta  rather  than  as  a  Christian  Advaitin.153  In  
the  midst  of  differences  of  opinions  one  can  still  conclude  that  Panikkar’s  Christological  
formulations  were  influenced  by  advaitic  philosophy  and  his  Christophany  finds  its’  
certain  roots  there.154  The  cosmotheandric  vision  of  Panikkar  is  shaped  by  a  fusion  
between  the  theandric  vision  of  Christianity  and  the  theocosmic  vision  of  the  Hindu  
religion.155  
It  is  also  important  to  note  that  it  is  not  only  the  advaitic  philosophy,  which  
influenced  his  Christological  formulations.  Biographically,  the  encounter  with  
Abhishiktananda  was  crucial  for  Panikkar,  though  often  overlooked.  It  was  he  who  
encouraged  him  to  think  along  Hindu-­‐‑Christian  lines  to  develop  a  “Trinitarian  Advaita”  
or  “Cosmotheandrism.”156  
Interestingly  it  is  also  found  that  Panikkar  was  well  acquainted  and  influenced  
by  Bultmann  and  his  method  of  demythologization.  He  was  also  a  regular  visitor  to  the  
annual  seminars  on  hermeneutic  demythologization  in  Rome.  However,  the  difference  
between  him  and  the  European  dymythologizers  are  that  the  latter  were  interested  in  
severing  myth  from  historicity,  whereas  Panikkar  appears  to  be  uninterested  in  
questions  of  history  and  historicity.  For  him  the  religious  narratives  are  valuable  to  the  
extent  that  they  transmit  myth-­‐‑stories  which  open  up  towards  the  transcendent-­‐‑their  
possible  historical  content  is  of  no  particular  religious  interest.    
The  basic  problem  that  we  are  probing  in  Panikkar’s  Christology  is  his  tendency  
in  minimizing  (?)  the  historicity  of  Jesus  Christ.  One  can  surmise,  whether  it  is  the  
                                                                                               
152  Kana  Mitra,  Catholicism-­‐‑Hinduism.  Vedantic  Investigation  of  Raimundo  Panikkar'ʹs  Attempt  at  Bridge  
Building  (Lanham:  University  Press  of  America,  1987),  148.  
153  Robin  H.  S.  Boyd,  Kristadvaita:  A  Theology  for  India  (Madras:  CLS,  1977),  156,  418.  

154  Kajsa  Ahlstrand,  Fundamental  Openness.  An  Enquiry  into  Raimundo  Panikkar'ʹs  Theological  Vision  and  its  

Presuppositions,  Studia  Missionalia  Upsaliensia  LVII  (Uppsala:  Uppsala  University,  1993);  Ewert  H.  
Cousins,  "ʺPanikkar'ʹs  Advaitic  Trinitarianism,"ʺ  in  The  Intercultural  Challenge  of  Raimon  Panikkar,  ed.  Joseph  
Prabhu(Maryknoll,  New  York:  Orbis  Books,  1996),  119-­‐‑130;  Francis  X.  D'ʹSa,  "ʺThe  Advaita  Principle  of  
Raimon  Panikkar  and  Trinty,"ʺ  in  Negotiating  Borders:  Theological  Explorations  in  the  Global  Era.  Essays  in  
Honour  of  Prof.  Felix  Wilfred,  ed.  Patrick  Gnanapragasam  and  Elisabeth  Schüssler  Fiorenza(Delhi:  ISPCK,  
2008),  158-­‐‑166;  MacPherson,  A  Critical  Reading  of  the  Development  of  Raimon  Panikkar'ʹs  Thought  on  the  
Trinity;  Menacherry,  Christ:  The  Mystery  in  History.  A  Critical  Study  on  the  Christology  of  Raymond  Panikkar;  
Joseph  Prabhu,  "ʺLost  in  Translation:  Panikkar'ʹs  Intercultural  Odyssey,"ʺ  in  The  Intercultural  Challenge  of  
Raimon  Panikkar,  ed.  Joseph  Prabhu(Maryknoll,  New  York:  Orbis  Books,  1996),  1-­‐‑21;  Israel  Selvanayagam,  
"ʺRevisiting  The  Unknown  Christ  of  Hinduism:  A  Tribute  to  Raymundo  Panikkar,"ʺ  Gurukul  Journal  of  
Theological  Studies  XXI,  no.  2  (June  2010):  61-­‐‑70.  
155  Menacherry,  Christ:  The  Mystery  in  History.  A  Critical  Study  on  the  Christology  of  Raymond  Panikkar,  119.  

156  Ahlstrand,  Fundamental  Openness.  An  Enquiry  into  Raimundo  Panikkar'ʹs  Theological  Vision  and  its  

Presuppositions,  102.  
advaitic  influence  coupled  with  Butlmannian  demythologization,  which  is  responsible  
for  such  a  stand  on  the  historical  particularity  of  Jesus?  
 

4. The  Problem  

Panikkar’s  project  of  bridging  the  vast  expanse  of  various  religions  with  Christ  is  
interesting  but  our  problem  lies  with  its  outcome.  He  ends  up  constructing  a  theoretical  
model  that  bestows  on  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  a  historical  personality  only  of  marginal  
significance.    
Panikkar  would  argue  that  any  overemphasis  on  the  category  of  transcendence  
and  a  lack  of  historical  consciousness  as  real  threats  for  the  Hindus.  For  him,  unity  
among  religions  cannot  be  founded  on  too  transcendental  a  principle,  for  Incarnation  
and  concrete  symbols  are  needed.  Komulainen  opines,  “It  is  thus  impossible  to  avoid  
the  impression  that,  in  this  respect,  Christianity  has  something  to  teach  Hinduism.”157  
Panikkar  in  his  attempt  to  interpret  the  significance  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  
transposes  him  to  a  cosmological  category.  Everything  that  functions,  as  an  
intermediary  is  Christ  for  him:  
Christ,  manifest  or  hidden,  is  the  only  way  to  God.  Even  by  definition  the  unique  link  
between  the  created  and  the  uncreated,  the  relative  and  the  Absolute,  the  temporal  and  
the  eternal,  earth  and  heaven  is  Christ,  the  only  mediator.  Between  these  two  poles  
everything  that  functions  as  intermediary,  link,  ‘conveyor’,  is  Christ,  the  sole  priest  of  
the  cosmic  priesthood,  Ruler  of  the  Universe  par  excellence.158    
 
This  cosmic  Christ  he  finds  in  every  religion.  He  says,  
This,  then,  is  Christ:  that  reality  from  whom  everything  has  come,  in  whom  everything  
subsists,  to  whom  everything  that  suffers  the  wear  and  tear  of  time  shall  return.  Hence  
from  the  point  of  view  of  Christianity,  Christ  is  already  present  in  Hinduism.  The  Spirit  
of  Christ  is  already  at  work  in  Hindu  prayer.  Christ  is  already  present  in  every  form  of  
worship,  to  the  extent  that  it  is  adoration  directed  to  God.159    
 

                                                                                               
157  Komulainen,  An  Emerging  Cosmotheandric  Religion?  Raimon  Panikkar'ʹs  Pluralistic  Theology  of  Religions,  
129.  
158  Panikkar,  The  Trinity  and  World  Religions.  Icon-­‐‑Person-­‐‑Mystery,  52.  

159  Panikkar,  The  Unknown  Christ  of  Hinduism.  Towards  an  Ecumenical  Christophany,  49.  
 What  happens  with  Panikkar  is  that  his  Christ  eventually  becomes  so  abstract  
that  he  starts  applying  the  philosophical  term  ‘the  christic  principle.’160  Panikkar  admits  
the  Incarnation  of  the  Logos  in  history.  But  he  finds  universal  relevance  only  for  the  
post-­‐‑Easter  Jesus  Christ  and  not  for  the  pre-­‐‑Easter  Jesus.  He  showed  how  Christians  
could  affirm  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  though  we  cannot  claim  that  Christ  is  only  Jesus.161  
He  says,  “Christ,  the  saviour  is  not  to  be  restricted  to  the  merely  historical  figure  of  
Jesus  of  Nazareth.”162  For  him  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  not  absolutely  identical  to  Christ.  He  
says,  
Jesus,  the  son  of  Mary,  is  a  historical  figure.  History  is  central  to  Christianity.  But  Christ  
is  not  exhausted  in  Jesus,  so  to  speak.  And  Christ  is  more  than  history.  Reality  is  not  
identical  with  history.  It  would  undermine  Christianity  of  its  meaning  –  and  –  truth  –  
were  we  to  deny  the  historicity  of  Jesus  or  than  Jesus  in  the  Christ.  But  it  would  similarly  
reduce  Christianity  to  a  mere  historical  phenomenon  were  we  to  totally  equate  Christ  
with  Jesus....163    
 
Panikkar  explains  that,  for  him,  Christ  is  the  most  powerful  living  symbol  –  but  
not  limited  to  the  historical  Jesus  –  of  the  fully  human,  divine,  and  cosmic  reality  that  he  
calls  the  Mystery.164  This  symbol  can  have  other  names:  for  example,  Rama,  Krishna,  
Ishvara  or  Purusha.165  Christians  call  him  “Christ,”  because  it  is  in  and  through  Jesus  that  
they  themselves  have  arrived  at  faith  in  the  decisive  reality.  Each  name,  however,  
expresses  the  indivisible  Mystery,166  each  being  an  unknown  dimension  of  Christ.167  
It  should  be  noted  that  Panikkar’s  Christological  formulation  is  developed  in  
distinguishing  between  faith  and  belief.  Faith  for  him  is  the  person’s  basic  religious  
experience;  it  is  a  constitutive  element  of  the  human  person.  Belief,  on  the  other  hand,  is  
the  particular  expression  adopted  by  this  fundamental  human  attitude  in  any  given  

                                                                                               
160  Komulainen,  An  Emerging  Cosmotheandric  Religion?  Raimon  Panikkar'ʹs  Pluralistic  Theology  of  Religions,  
130.  
161  Panikkar,  The  Unknown  Christ  of  Hinduism.  Towards  an  Ecumenical  Christophany,  14.  

162  Raimundo  Panikkar,  Salvation  in  Christ:  Concreteness  and  Universality,  the  Supername,  Inauguration  

Lecture  at  the  Ecumenical  Institute  of  Advanced  Theological  Study  (Tantur,  Jerusalem:  1972),  51.  
163  Raimundo  Panikkar,  "ʺInstead  of  a  Foreword:  An  Open  Letter,"ʺ  in  Theological  Approach  and  

Understanding  of  Religion.  Jean  Danielou  and  Raimundo  Panikkar:  A  Study  in  Contrast(Bangalore:  Kristu  Jyoti  
College,  1987),  xiii.  
164  Panikkar,  The  Unknown  Christ  of  Hinduism.  Towards  an  Ecumenical  Christophany,  23,  26-­‐‑27.  

165  Ibid.,  27.  

166  Ibid.,  29.  

167  Ibid.,  30.  

tradition.  The  content  of  faith,  which  he  calls  “the  mystery,”  is  the  lived  relationship  to  
a  transcendence,  which  seizes  the  human  being.  It  is  common  to  all  religions.  He  calls  
this  mystery  “cosmotheandric  reality,”  to  denote  a  transcendence  experienced  by  the  
human  being  in  the  cosmos.  On  the  other  hand,  the  content  of  belief  consists  of  the  
various  myths  in  which  faith  takes  concrete  expression.  In  Christianity,  we  have  the  
“Jesus-­‐‑myth”;  other  traditions  offer  similar  myths.  All  these  myths  have  equal  value.  
Christianity  gives  the  name  of  Christ  to  the  mystery,  but  the  mystery  can  assume  other  
names.  While  the  various  religious  traditions  differ  on  the  level  of  belief,  they  are  all  
seen  to  coincide  on  that  of  faith.  Intra-­‐‑religious  dialogue  cannot  require  a  bracketing  of  
faith,  but  it  can  demand  a  bracketing  of  beliefs  –  indeed,  their  transcending.  Panikkar  
hopes  for  a  cross-­‐‑fertilization  of  the  beliefs  of  the  various  traditions.168  
It  should  be  noted  here  that  such  a  position  of  Panikkar  becomes  problematic,  
especially  the  place  held  by  Jesus  of  history  in  Christian  faith.  For  the  first  Christians,  as  
the  apostolic  kerygma  testifies  (Acts  2:36),  the  historical  Jesus  was  personally  identical  
to  the  Christ  of  faith.  He  has  become  the  Christ  in  his  being  raised  by  the  Father.  He  was  
also  the  very  mystery  (Rom.  16:25;  Eph.  3:4;  Col.  2:2;  4:3;  1  Tim.  3:16)  preached  by  Paul.  
Thus,  Jesus  himself  belongs  to  the  actual  object  of  faith.  He  is  inseparable  from  Christ,  
on  whom  he  bestows  historical  concretion.169  
Panikkar  makes  a  ‘dangerous’  distinction  between  the  Mystery  and  the  Jesus-­‐‑
myth  –  that  is,  the  Christ  of  faith  and  the  Jesus  of  history  –  whom  he  distinguishes  as  
objects  of  faith  and  belief,  respectively.  Dupuis  raises  a  very  fundamental  objection  to  
such  a  stand.  He  says,  
Is  a  reduction  of  the  Jesus-­‐‑myth  to  an  object  of  belief  as  distinct  from  faith  compatible  
with  the  Christian  profession  of  faith  in  the  person  from  Nazareth?  And  as  if  by  
backlash,  is  not  the  content  of  faith  reduced  in  turn  to  a  neutral  relationship  to  a  
transcendence,  without  a  concrete  object?170  
 
It  also  raises  the  question:  how  are  we  to  conceive  the  relation  of  the  “reality”  of  
“mystery,”  the  Christ  symbol,  to  the  historical  Jesus?  Dupuis  argues  that  in  Panikkar’s  
thought  now  “distinction  is  introduced  between  the  Christ  of  faith  and  the  Jesus  of  

                                                                                               
168  Jacques  Dupuis,  Towards  a  Christian  Theology  of  Religious  Pluralism,  2nd  ed.  (Maryknoll,  New  York:  
Orbis  Books,  1998),  151-­‐‑152.  
169  Ibid.,  152.  

170  Ibid.  Also  Jacques  Dupuis,  Jesus  Christ  at  the  Encounter  of  World  Religions,  Faith  Meets  Faith  Series  

(Maryknoll,  New  York:  Orbis  Books,  1991),  187.  

history  that  no  longer  seems  to  give  adequate  account  of  the  Christian  assertion  that  
Jesus  is  the  Christ.”171  He  further  states,  
[Even]  with  all  his  explanation,  Raimundo  Panikkar’s  thought  does  not  appear  to  
preserve  the  indissoluble  link  between  the  Christ  of  faith  and  the  Jesus  of  history.  It  
betrays  this  link,  weakening  it  and  threatening,  in  spite  of  itself,  to  reduce  the  Christian  
message  to  a  kind  of  gnosis.  Were  we  to  follow  it,  we  should  arrive,  willy-­‐‑nilly,  both  a  
Christ-­‐‑myth  and  a  Jesus-­‐‑myth.172    
 
It  is  important  here  that  we  understand  why  Panikkar  ‘minimizes’  the  historicity  
of  Jesus.  According  to  Panikkar,  Christ  is  not  primarily  a  historical  person  but  a  divine  
person  who  embraces  all  history.173  In  the  Christian  tradition  Jesus  is  the  one  who  
reveals  Christ,  hence  his  importance.  However,  this  importance  is  limited,  because  it  is  
only  for  Christians  that  Jesus  is  Christ.174  If  Jesus  becomes  an  obstacle  instead  of  a  
vehicle  for  Christ,  then  Christ  has  the  priority  and  Jesus  must  yield.  This  is  not  the  same  
as  saying  that  Jesus  is  not  Christ.  For  Panikkar  it  would  be  then  ‘Jesus  is  Christ  but  
Christ  is  not  exclusively  Jesus.’    
Panikkar  finds  a  problem  with  the  historical  Jesus  which  according  to  him,  is  that  
historical  facts  are  important  only  for  those  who  live  in  the  ‘myth  of  history.175  In  the  
West  historical  facts,  “what  really  happened,”  are  central  when  substantiating  the  truth  
about  something.  The  Indian  mind,  however,  regards  historical  facts  as  events  that  have  
not  reached  their  full  reality.  Therefore,  in  an  Indian  context,  the  very  insistence  on  the  
historicity  of  Jesus  may  be  counterproductive,  as  the  Jesus  of  history  is  seen  as  less  real  
than  the  Christ  of  faith.176  It  is  for  this  reason  that  Panikkar  is  less  interested  in  the  
historical  Jesus  at  least  in  the  Indian  context.  “But  the  problem  is  not  only  pastoral”  
says,  Ahlstrand  “He  is  cautious  not  to  overemphasize  the  historical  Jesus  also  in  other  
contexts.”177  

                                                                                               
171  Dupuis,  Jesus  Christ  at  the  Encounter  of  World  Religions,  186.  
172  Ibid.,  187.  
173  Kerygma  und  Indien.  Zur  Heilgeschichtlichen  Problematik  der  christlichen  Begegnung  mit  Indien,  Hamburg:  

1967,  44,  quoted  in  Ahlstrand,  Fundamental  Openness.  An  Enquiry  into  Raimundo  Panikkar'ʹs  Theological  
Vision  and  its  Presuppositions,  160.    
174  Panikkar,  The  Unknown  Christ  of  Hinduism.  Towards  an  Ecumenical  Christophany,  14.  

175  Panikkar,  Myth,  Faith  and  Hermeneutics.  Cross-­‐‑Cultural  Studies,  100.  

176  Ahlstrand,  Fundamental  Openness.  An  Enquiry  into  Raimundo  Panikkar'ʹs  Theological  Vision  and  its  

Presuppositions,  162.  
177  Ibid.  
 Panikkar  said,  “if  we  remain  attached  exclusively  to  the  ‘Saviour’,  to  his  
humanity  and  his  historicity,  we  block,  in  a  manner  of  speaking,  the  coming  of  the  
Spirit.”178  He  cautions  the  Christians  that  they  should  not  be  satisfied  with  the  historical  
Jesus  –  however  divinized.179  
As  noted  earlier  Panikkar  objects  to  what  he  calls  “myth  of  history”  which  has  
led  to  a  situation  in  which  Christology  is  confined  only  to  the  incarnation  of  Christ.  He  
says,  
But  it  would  similarly  reduce  Christianity  to  a  mere  historical  phenomenon  were  we  to  
totally  equate  Christ  with  Jesus,  the  Eucharist  with  a  pure  remembrance  of  the  past,  and  
Christian  faith  to  mere  adherence  to  a  written  doctrine  conserved  through  translations  
and  secondary  sources.  Is  not  Christian  faith  an  experience  of  the  present?  Is  not  Christ  
the  risen  Jesus?  And  resurrection  is  not  an  exclusively  historical  category  as  much  as  it  is  
not  a  chemical  or  gravitational  phenomenon.180    
 
For  Panikkar  the  claims  of  Jesus  go  beyond  spatio-­‐‑temporal  sphere.  It  is  to  the  
cosmic  Christ  Panikkar  alludes.  Panikkar  establishes  his  pluralistic  theology  of  religions  
explicitly  upon  cosmic  Christology.  He  says,  
The  ultimate  reason  for  this  universal  idea  of  Christianity,  an  idea  which  makes  possible  
the  catholic  embrace  of  every  people  and  religion,  lies  in  the  Christian  conception  of  
Christ:  he  is  not  only  the  historical  redeemer,  but  also  the  unique  Son  of  God,  the  Second  
Person  of  the  Trinity,  the  only  ontological  –  temporal  and  eternal  –  link  between  God  
and  the  World.181  
 
Panikkar’s  cosmic  Christology  is  based  on  a  distinction  between  ‘person’  and  
‘individual.’  This  enables  him  to  detach  the  true  meaning  of  Jesus,  i.e.,  his  personal  
mystery,  from  a  particular  historical  being.182  He  in  addition  distinguishes  between  
‘personal  identification’  and  ‘personal  identity’:  personal  identification  is  based  on  
empirical  data,  on  the  external  signs  of  the  person  in  question,  thus  not  touching  the  
person  proper.183  Whereas  for  Panikkar  personal  identity  means  the  nucleus  of  a  human  

                                                                                               
178  Panikkar,  The  Trinity  and  World  Religions.  Icon-­‐‑Person-­‐‑Mystery,  58.  
179  Panikkar,  The  Unknown  Christ  of  Hinduism.  Towards  an  Ecumenical  Christophany,  29.  
180  Ibid.,  83.  Cf.  Panikkar,  "ʺInstead  of  a  Foreword:  An  Open  Letter,"ʺ  xiii.  

181  Panikkar,  The  Unknown  Christ  of  Hinduism.  Towards  an  Ecumenical  Christophany,  82-­‐‑83.  

182  Komulainen,  An  Emerging  Cosmotheandric  Religion?  Raimon  Panikkar'ʹs  Pluralistic  Theology  of  Religions,  

129.  
183  Ibid.,  130.  
being  that  is  involved  in  personal  relationship.  By  taking  such  a  stand  Panikkar  is  
attempting  to  find  a  category  in  the  framework  of  which  Christology  could  operate  
regarding  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Proving  a  Christological  method  as  deficient  that  
concentrates  on  the  historical  Jesus  can  establish  a  new  methodology  that  takes  into  
account  of  a  more  universal  horizon.  By  locating  Christ’s  significance  in  the  field  of  
personal  identity,  he  constructs  a  theoretical  model  that  bestows  on  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  
a  historical  personality  only  marginal  significance.184  The  quest  for  the  historical  Jesus  
should  be  superseded  by  efforts  to  grasp  his  very  essence,  which  cannot  be  found  in  
history  or  in  our  inner  world.185  
Why  Christ  is  more  important  than  Jesus  of  history?  Panikkar  writes,  
Who  then  is  Christ?  He  cannot  be  pointed  out  exclusively  in  the  other  world  of  history,  
nor  in  the  exclusively  inner  world  of  one’s  own  thoughts,  feelings  and  beliefs.  
Morphologically  speaking  the  figure  of  Christ  is  also  here  ambivalent  and,  in  a  way,  
theandric.186  
 
In  line  with  this  argument,  Panikkar  is  free  to  see  Christ  anywhere.  This  enables  
him  to  pursue  his  idea  of  homeomorphic  equivalents  of  Christ  in  other  religions,  as  well  
as  his  cosmic  Christology  and  pan-­‐‑christic  ontology.187  
There  are  two  premises  in  Panikkar’s  Christology.  First,  he  defines  ‘person’  as  an  
extensive  and  dynamic  concept  that  is  in  tension  with  more  outward  ‘identification.’  
Secondly,  he  locates  the  real  meaning  of  Jesus  in  the  sphere  of  ‘personal  identity.’    He  
thus  repudiates  as  idolatrous  if  the  authentic  ‘thou’  is  confined  to  one  particular  object.  
This  also  seems  to  hold  true  for  Jesus  of  Nazareth.188  One  also  finds  a  personalistic  
leaning  in  Panikkar’s  thinking.  
Panikkar  finds  another  theological  argument  for  Christ  being  more  than  Jesus  of  
Nazareth,  which  rests  on  a  rather  idiosyncratic  understanding  of  resurrection.  

                                                                                               
184  Komulainen  finds  a  methodological  resemblance  between  Panikkar  and  German  Protestant  theology  
as  influenced  by  Kantian  philosophy,  according  to  which  issues  of  faith  are  related  to  the  area  of  the  
person,  not  of  nature.  F.N.  84,  ibid.  
185  Ibid.  

186  Raimon  Panikkar,  "ʺThe  Meaning  of  Christ'ʹs  Name  in  the  Universal  Economy  of  Salvation,"ʺ  in  Service  

and  Salvation  (Nagpur  Theological  Conference  on  Evangelization),  ed.  Joseph  Pathrapankal(Bangalore:  
Theological  Publication  of  India,  1973),  257.  
187  Komulainen,  An  Emerging  Cosmotheandric  Religion?  Raimon  Panikkar'ʹs  Pluralistic  Theology  of  Religions,  

131.  
188  Panikkar,  "ʺThe  Meaning  of  Christ'ʹs  Name  in  the  Universal  Economy  of  Salvation,"ʺ  257.  
According  to  him  the  risen  Christ  is  not  limited  to  any  geographical  categories  or  
historical  parameters.189  
Panikkar  has  a  number  of  arguments  for  why  Christology  should  espouse  a  
wide,  even  cosmic  frame  of  reference.  This  leads  him  to  adopt  a  very  critical  attitude  
towards  methodology  according  to  which  Christology  should  adhere  to  the  historical  
Jesus.190  
The  problem  we  face  with  his  Christophany  which  he  himself  confesses,  “[it]  -­‐‑  in  
itself  ambiguous  –  could  be  interpreted  to  mean  a  more  or  less  docetic  vision  of  
Jesus.”191  He  qualifies  his  statement  to  state  that  “we  employ  the  word  in  a  sense  that  is  
in  greater  harmony  with  the  manifestation  of  the  Christian  scriptures  –  that  is,  a  visible,  
clear,  public  manifestation  of  a  truth.”  He  further  states  that,  
This  notion  of  Christ  must  include  both  the  figure  of  the  historical  past  and  the  reality  of  
the  present.  Christophany  is  not  mere  exegesis  of  “inspired”  texts  nor  Christian  
archaeology,  and  not  even  an  exclusively  analytic  and  deductive  reflection  of  that  
historical  reality  which  Christians  call  Christ.  Christ  does  not  belong  to  the  past  alone.192  
 
Most  of  the  critics  of  Panikkar’s  Christological  approach  have  problem  with  
Panikkar’s  understanding  of  history  and  its  application  in  his  Christological  thinking.  
The  distinction  Panikkar  makes  between  the  historical  identification  of  Jesus  with  Christ  
and  the  historical  identity  of  the  Person  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  not  acceptable  to  many  a  
theologian.  They  argue  that  Panikkar  reduces  Christ  to  a  principle  and  he  presents  
Christ  as  Vedantic  Isvara.193  
To  Panikkar’s  emphasis  that  ‘Christ,  the  Saviour  is,  not  to  be  restricted  to  the  
merely  historical  figure  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  or  the  identity  of  Jesus  is  not  to  be  
confused  with  historical  identification’  Chethimattam  says,  
…  [H]e  seems  to  have  gone  too  far  to  the  opposite  extreme,  almost  to  the  point  of  
denying  all  value  to  the  concrete  and  historical  humanity  of  Christ.  The  central  mystery  
of  the  incarnation  is  not  the  divinity  of  Christ  but  his  humanity  assumed  by  Logos.  If  
that  humanity  is  reduced  to  mere  ‘theophany’  of  some  value  only  to  the  Jews  of  

                                                                                               
189  Panikkar,  "ʺThe  Invisible  Harmony:  A  Universal  Theory  of  Religion  or  a  Cosmic  Confidence  in  
Reality?,"ʺ  33-­‐‑34.  
190  Komulainen,  finds  an  affinity  between  Panikkar’s  and  Tillich’s  Christology.  Komulainen,  An  Emerging  

Cosmotheandric  Religion?  Raimon  Panikkar'ʹs  Pluralistic  Theology  of  Religions,  132.  

191  Panikkar,  The  Fullness  of  Man:  A  Christophany,  10.  

192  Ibid.  

193  Parappally,  Emerging  Trends  in  Indian  Christology,  174.  

 Palestine  and  the  people  of  Mediterranean  world  and  of  their  colonies,  the  Incarnation,  
the  advent  of  Son  of  God  into  concrete  human  history  loses  its  central  meaning.194  

Panikkar’s  Christology  evokes  questions  about  the  meaning  of  the  historical  
Jesus.  What  is  the  role  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  in  a  Christology  with  such  a  wide  and  
universal  scope?  
Even  though  Panikkar  does  not  wish,  in  principle,  to  dispense  with  the  Christian  
conception  according  to  which  Christ  is  the  “historical  redeemer”,  and  Jesus  of  
Nazareth  has  “a  special  and  unique  relationship  with  ...  the  Son”  his  texts  impart  that,  
methodologically,  his  Christology  hardly  attaches  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  It  is  easy  to  find  
in  his  writings  statements  that  minimise  the  value  of  history,  or  at  least  suggest  that  
Jesus  is  of  secondary  importance.195  Komulainen  opines  that  Panikkar’s  Christology  
rests  upon  the  following  fundamental  theological  basis:  the  role  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  
confined  to  the  background,  and  to  providing  a  starting-­‐‑point  for  Christian  
consciousness,  whereas  Christ  holds  the  pivotal  theological  position.196  
Panikkar  displays  no  special  interest  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth;  the  significance  of  the  
historical  figure  is  reduced  to  a  minimum  in  his  vision.  He  may  be  denying  that  he  was  
“escaping  the  scandal  of  the  incarnation”  or  “ignoring  ...  historical  facts.”  In  spite  of  all  
his  rhetoric,  it  is  difficult  to  avoid  the  feeling  that,  to  a  great  extent,  he  has  dispensed  
with  Christian  commitment  to  the  historical  figure  of  Jesus  and  eschews  history.197  It  is  
interesting  to  note  his  call  for  not  only  the  “dekerygmatization”  but  also  for  the  
“dehistoricizing”  of  Christ.  He  writes,  “Decades  ago  I  called  for  the  dekerygmatization  
of  Christ  in  order  to  free  him  from  any  dogmatic  proclamation.  Today  I  would  ask  

                                                                                               
194  J.  B.  Chethimattam,  "ʺR.  Panikkar'ʹs  Approach  to  Christology,"ʺ  The  Indian  Journal  of  Theology  23,  no.  3&4  
(July-­‐‑Dec.  1974):  221.  
195  Komulainen,  An  Emerging  Cosmotheandric  Religion?  Raimon  Panikkar'ʹs  Pluralistic  Theology  of  Religions,  

126.  
196  Ibid.This  position  is  similar  to  the  position  of  Rudolf  Bultmann.  Cf.  Alister  E.  McGrath,  The  Making  of  

Modern  German  Christology:  1750-­‐‑1990,  2nd  ed.  (Leicester,  UK/Grand  Rapids,  Michigan:  
APOLLOS/Zondervan  Publishing  House,  1994),  154-­‐‑173.  
197  Jesus  was  certainly  a  historical  person  who  lived  in  a  specific  period  in  history.  “When  I  say  that  

history  is  the  modern  myth  of  the  West,  I  am  not  asserting  that  history  is  a  “myth”  in  the  all-­‐‑too-­‐‑common  
meaning  of  the  word,  but  that  historical  events  are  seen  as  the  horizon  in  which  the  real  is  manifested  in  
such  a  way  that  the  historical  Jesus  is  identified  with  the  real  Jesus.  If  Jesus  were  not  a  historical  
personage,  he  would  lose  all  his  reality.”  Christophany  does  not  contest  the  historicity  of  Jesus.  History  
must  not  be  neglected;  neither  may  Christ’s  historical  role  be  ignored.  Christianity  is  a  historical  religion.  
If  we  abolish  history,  we  destroy  Christianity.  Panikkar,  The  Fullness  of  Man:  A  Christophany,  157,  162,  168,  
173.  
whether  we  have  to  also  dehistoricize  him.”198  For  him,  as  noted  earlier  the  ‘quest  of  
historical  Jesus’  should  be  superseded  by  the  efforts  to  grasp  his  very  essence,  which  
cannot  be  found  in  history  or  in  our  inner  world.  
Christology  for  him  should  take  on  a  meta-­‐‑theological  dimension.199  The  major  
theological  problem  of  finding  “an  adequate  theology  of  religion,  capable  of  
encompassing  the  whole  range  of  man’s  [sic]  religious  experience  today”  must  be  
reflected  in  contemporary  Christology.200  He  tries  to  articulate  who  Christ  is  in  the  
world  religious  context.201  It  is  one  of  these  reasons  to  put  Jesus  Christ  in  the  universal  
dimension  that  he  ‘sidelines’  the  historicity  of  Jesus.    
For  him  the  way  contemporary  Christianity  presents  Christ  is  a  real  stumbling  
block  in  the  process  of  interaction  with  the  world  religions.202  Therefore,  it  is  necessary  
to  find  experience  and  present  the  real  Jesus  Christ  in  a  way  that  makes  sense  to  other  
religions.203    
 

5. An  Evaluation    

Panikkar’s  Christology  is  one  of  the  most  contentious  elements  in  his  theology.  His  
attempt  to  relate  Christ  to  a  wider  phenomenon  than  Jesus  has  rendered  him  
considerable  criticism  from  many  Christian  theologians.  
Eric  Sharpe  writes,  
An  early  and  controversial  work  was  Raymond  Panikkar’s  The  Unknown  Christ  of  
Hinduism,  an  obscure  and  difficult  book  which  stressed  the  hidden  presence  of  ‘Christ’  –  
a  cosmic  principle  terribly  difficult  to  relate  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth  –  somewhere  deep  
within  Hinduism,  or  rather  within  the  tradition  of  Advaita  Vedanta.  ...  In  the  end,  though,  

                                                                                               
198  Raimundo  Panikkar,  "ʺCan  Theology  Be  Transcultural?,"ʺ  in  Pluralism  and  Oppression:  Theology  in  World  
Perspective,  ed.  Paul  F.  Knitter,  The  Annual  Publication  of  the  College  Theology  Society  1988  (Lanham,  
New  York:  University  Press  of  America,  1991),  8.  
199  Menacherry,  Christ:  The  Mystery  in  History.  A  Critical  Study  on  the  Christology  of  Raymond  Panikkar,  46.  

200  Panikkar,  Salvation  in  Christ:  Concreteness  and  Universality,  the  Supername,  72.  

201  Harold  G.  Coward,  "ʺPanikkar'ʹs  Approach  to  Interreligious  Dialogue,"ʺ  Cross  Currents  29,  no.  2  (Summer  

1979):  185-­‐‑186.  
202  Panikkar,  The  Unknown  Christ  of  Hinduism.  Towards  an  Ecumenical  Christophany,  ii,  x.  Cf.  Panikkar,  

Salvation  in  Christ:  Concreteness  and  Universality,  the  Supername,  78.  

203  Panikkar,  The  Unknown  Christ  of  Hinduism.  Towards  an  Ecumenical  Christophany,  165.  
 what  Panikkar  is  saying  in  his  book  appears  to  be  not  greatly  different  from  the  
‘fulfilment’  idea  of  the  liberal  Protestants  more  than  half  a  century  earlier.204  
 
Some  authors  belie  any  clear-­‐‑cut  categorization;  among  these  is,  Raimundo  
Panikkar.  In  spite  of  Panikkar’s  clarifications205  to  the  objections  that  he  disjoins  a  
universal  Christ  from  the  Jesus  of  history,  his  claims  still  remain  ambiguous.  His  
Christology  [Christophany]  does  not  entirely  dispel  the  impression  that  the  
“Cosmotheandric”  reality  present  in  and  common  to  every  religious  experience  in  
whatever  tradition  –  a  reality  Christians  call  “the  Christ”  remains  loosely  connected  
with  the  historical  person  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Such  an  object  of  faith  runs  the  risk  of  
becoming  an  abstraction,  little  in  keeping  with  the  inclusivist  christocentric  paradigm.206  
Both  Chettimattam  and  Smet  opine  that  Panikkar  is  a  Christian  theologian,  who  is  
genuinely  uninterested  in  Jesus,  but  totally  focussed  on  Christ,  who  is  the  junction  
between  the  Absolute  and  the  relative.  Chettimattam  opines  that  to  Panikkar  Christ  is  
more  important  than  Jesus,  and  that  Christ  is  Saviour  because  he  is  the  central  point  
that  gives  cohesion  to  the  universe,  that  he  is  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  Pantocrator.  Even  
so,  Chettimattam  is  critical  of  Panikkar’s  tendency  to  deny  almost  all  value  to  the  
concrete  and  historical  humanity  of  Christ  as  Jesus.207  
Ahlstrand  argues  that  “his  theology  is  not  at  all  ‘jesucentric’  because  he  makes  a  
clear  division  between  Jesus  and  Christ;  the  two  must  not  be  confounded.  Jesus  is  
important  only  to  the  extent  that  he  reveals  Christ.”208  When  such  fundamental  
questions  are  raised  about  the  ‘finale’  of  his  project  (which  many  agree  is  helpful):  
Christophany,  we  too  raise  certain  objections  about  the  way  he  finalizes  his  
Christophany.  
The  problem  how  to  relate  Jesus  to  Christ  and  Christ  to  Jesus  is  a  very  real  
pastoral  problem  for  the  Christian  church  in  India.  It  should  be  understood  that  
Panikkar  offers  his  Christophany  in  a  context  where  Hinduism  reigns.  Does  that  mean  
he  presents  Christ  in  a  Hindu  mould?  A  Hindu  sees  the  world  full  of  holy  men/women  

                                                                                               
204  Eric  J.  Sharpe,  Not  to  Destroy  But  to  Fulfil:  The  Contribution  of  J.  N.  Farquhar  to  Protestant  Missionary  
Thought  in  India  before  1914,  Studia  Missionalia  Upsaliensia,  V  (Uppsala:  Swedish  Institute  of  Missionary  
Research,  1965),  125.  
205  Panikkar,  "ʺA  Christophany  for  our  times,"ʺ  3-­‐‑21.  

206  Dupuis,  Towards  a  Christian  Theology  of  Religious  Pluralism,  189.  

207  Chethimattam,  "ʺR.  Panikkar'ʹs  Approach  to  Christology,"ʺ  219-­‐‑222.  

208  Ahlstrand,  Fundamental  Openness.  An  Enquiry  into  Raimundo  Panikkar'ʹs  Theological  Vision  and  its  

Presuppositions,  160.  
sent  by  God.  He/She  fails  to  understand  the  Christian  claim  that  the  incarnation  of  
Christ  is  unique.  They  ask:  why  should  there  be  only  one  Avatar?  
For  Panikkar  the  Christian  proclamation  of  the  Gospel  has  taken  a  path,  which  
has  been  very  unsuccessful.  He  proposes  an  alternative  to  this  that  the  missionary  
should  start  in  the  “Christ-­‐‑consciousness”209  Ahlstrand  maintains  that  speaking  about  
incarnation  in  India  leads  the  thoughts  of  the  Hindu  in  the  wrong  direction,  i.e.,  to  the  
idea  of  an  avatāra,  an  incarnation  in  history,  unable  to  transcend  history.210  
We  agree  that  the  historical  dimension  of  reference  is  not  the  basis  but  the  crown  
of  the  proclamation  of  the  Christian  Gospel;  the  historical  Jesus  is  not  the  point  of  
departure  but  the  eschaton.  The  skandalon  in  India  is  not  that  there  was  an  incarnation,  
not  that  God  humbled  himself  and  became  man,  not  that  Logos  became  flesh,  but  that  all  
flesh  can  and  shall  be  God.211  Now  this  is  adoptionism,212  which  has  been  always  
rejected  by  the  church  as  contrary  to  the  Trinitarian  assertion  that  Jesus  Christ  is  
eternally  divine.  
Then  how  do  we  do  Christology  in  the  Indian  context?  Christ  should  be  
incarnated  in  India  but  missionary  proclamation  should  respect  that  the  Indians  are  not  
primarily  interested  in  Jesus  of  history,  but  in  the  living  Christ  who  lives  in  the  history  
of  today  through  his  Sacrament.213  For  Panikkar  Jesus  belongs  to  the  temporal.  In  the  
temporal  sphere  Jesus  is  and  can  be  said  to  be  “unique.”  The  temporal,  however,  is  in  
Panikkar’s  view  not  all  of  reality,  and  not  even  its  most  important  dimension.214  
Ahlstrand  says,  for  Panikkar  if  Jesus  reveals  Christ,  then  Jesus  is  as  important  as  
Christ.  But  if  Jesus  obscures  and  conceals  Christ,  then  Christ  has  the  priority.  Jesus  
points  to  Christ  who  points  to  the  Father.  Jesus  is  Christ  in  history,  but  that  is  important  
only  for  those  who  regard  history  as  important.  However,  Panikkar  moves  further.  He  

                                                                                               
209  Quoted  in  ibid.,  162.  
210  Ibid.  
211  Ibid.  

212
 A  Second  century  ‘heresy’  also  known  as  dynamic  monarchianism.  Theodotus,  a  Byzantine  leather  
merchant  was  the  propounded  of  this  teaching.  According  to  this  teaching,  the  pre-­‐‑existence  of  Christ  is  
denied,  so  therefore,  his  divinity  too  is  in  doubt.  It  further  states  that  Jesus  was  tested  by  God;  and  after  
passing  this  test  and  upon  His  baptism;  He  was  granted  supernatural  powers  by  God  and  adopted  as  the  
Son.  As  a  reward  for  His  great  accomplishments  and  perfect  character,  Jesus  was  raised  from  the  dead  
and  adopted  into  the  Godhead.  
213  Ahlstrand,  Fundamental  Openness.  An  Enquiry  into  Raimundo  Panikkar'ʹs  Theological  Vision  and  its  

Presuppositions,  162.  
214  Ibid.,  164.  
relates  his  qualified  view  of  the  historical  Jesus  to  the  loaded  concept  of  Jesus  Christ  as  
the  Word  of  God.215  
Christ  eventually  becomes  so  abstract  in  Panikkar’s  thinking  that  he  applies  the  
philosophical  term  ‘the  christic  principle.’216  Christ  is  considered  to  be  present  in  all  
authentic  religions  as  their  ‘principle  of  life.’217  Panikkar’s  Christophany  evokes  
questions  about  the  meaning  of  the  historical  Jesus.  What  is  the  role  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  
in  such  a  Christology  where  the  emphasis  is  on  a  universal  aspect?  In  Panikkar’s  
thought  Jesus  does  not  exhaust  the  mystery  of  Christ,  Christ  surpasses  mere  Jesus.  
In  principle,  Panikkar  does  not  dispense  with  the  ‘historical  redeemer’  but  his  
texts  impart  that,  methodologically,  his  Christology  hardly  attaches  to  Jesus  of  
Nazareth.  There  are  numerous  statements  in  his  writings  that  minimize  the  value  of  
history,  or  at  least  suggest  that  Jesus  is  of  secondary  importance.  He  wrote  “...  Jesus,  the  
Son  of  Mary,  is  an  historical  figure.  ...  But  Christ  is  not  exhausted  in  Jesus,  so  to  speak.  
And  Christ  is  more  than  history.”218    
It  appears  that  his  Christology  rests  upon  the  following  fundamental  theological  
basis:  the  role  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  confined  to  the  background,  and  to  providing  a  
starting-­‐‑point  for  Christian  consciousness,  whereas  Christ  holds  the  pivotal  theological  
position.219  In  spite  of  all  of  this,  Panikkar’s  clarifications  still  finds  himself  on  the  wrong  
side  of  minimizing/ignoring  the  historical  facts  or  ‘escaping  the  scandal  of  the  
incarnation.’  It  also  displays  almost  exclusive  cosmological-­‐‑ontological  traits.220  Hence  
one  may  conclude  that  Panikkar’s  Christophany  does  not  accentuate  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  
It  is  rather  to  be  found  on  the  cosmological  and  ontological  horizon,  for  the  christic  
principle  infiltrates  all  religions  and  the  whole  of  reality,  and  is  manifested  in  all  
being.221  
For  Panikkar  Christ  is  a  category,  which  surpasses  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  His  
argument  that  Christology  cannot  be  confined  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth  rests  on  his  

                                                                                               
215  Ibid.  
216  Raimundo  Panikkar,  "ʺThe  Jordan,  the  Tiber,  and  the  Ganges:  Three  Kairological  Moments  of  Christic  
Self-­‐‑Consciousness,"ʺ  in  The  Myth  of  Christian  Uniqueness:  Towards  a  Pluralistic  Theology  of  Religions,  ed.  John  
Hick  and  Paul  F.  Knitter(London:  SCM  Press  Ltd,  1987),  105,  112.  
217  Panikkar,  The  Unknown  Christ  of  Hinduism.  Towards  an  Ecumenical  Christophany,  20.  

218  Panikkar,  "ʺInstead  of  a  Foreword:  An  Open  Letter,"ʺ  xii.  

219  Komulainen  finds  Panikkar’s  position  in  line  with  Bultmann,  and  Tillich’s.  Komulainen,  An  Emerging  

Cosmotheandric  Religion?  Raimon  Panikkar'ʹs  Pluralistic  Theology  of  Religions,  126.  

220  Ibid.  

221  Ibid.  
personalist222  arguments  whereby  he  distinguishes  between  the  personal  
identification223  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  and  the  personal  identity224  of  Christ.  For  Panikkar  
the  ‘myth  of  history’  has  led  to  a  confinement  of  Christology  only  to  the  Incarnation  of  
Christ.  Such  a  position  for  him  is  problematic.  For  him  Christ  is  beyond  the  spatio-­‐‑
temporal  spheres  of  this  world.  He  says,    
No  Christian  will  say  that  the  living  Christ  of  faith  is  only  a  being  of  the  past  and  no  
Christian  will  affirm  either,  on  the  other  hand,  that  when  he  receives  Christ  in  the  
Eucharist,  for  instance,  that  he  is  eating  the  proteins  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  who  was  
walking  in  Palestine  twenty  centuries  ago.225  
 
In  this  program  he  locates  the  significance  of  Christ  in  the  field  of  personal  
identity.  Thus,  he  constructs  a  model  where  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  a  historical  personality  
has  only  marginal  significance.    
DeSmet  observes  that  Panikkar’s  Hindu-­‐‑Christian  theology  is  an  attempt  to  
respond  to  the  challenge  to  Christianity  of  a-­‐‑historical  Hinduism.  However,  in  seeking  
to  ease  the  shock  of  a  historical  event  of  transcendent  value,  has  not  Panikkar  himself  
relativized  the  historical?226  
Does  Panikkar  sidelines  the  historical  Jesus?  The  answer  may  be  a  difficult  one.  
In  his  project  of  presenting  Christ  as  the  bridge  between  different  religious  traditions  
especially  Hinduism  he  offers  a  viable  solution  but  we  feel  that  he  ends  up  sidelining  
the  historical  Jesus  and  makes  him  a  ‘christic  principle,’  a  ‘symbol’  only.  It  was  noted  

                                                                                               
222  Personalism  posits  ultimate  reality  and  value  in  personhood  —  human  as  well  as  divine.  It  emphasizes  
the  significance,  uniqueness  and  inviolability  of  the  person,  as  well  as  the  person'ʹs  essentially  relational  
or  communitarian  dimension.  The  title  “personalism”  can  therefore  legitimately  be  applied  to  any  school  
of  thought  that  focuses  on  the  reality  of  persons  and  their  unique  status  among  beings  in  general,  and  
personalists  believe  that  the  human  person  should  be  the  ontological  and  epistemological  starting  point  
of  philosophical  reflection.  
223  It  is  based  on  empirical  data,  on  the  external  signs  of  the  person  in  question,  thus  not  touching  the  

person  proper.  In  Christology  this  means  that  Christ  is  only  seen  as  a  great  man  of  history.  Komulainen,  
An  Emerging  Cosmotheandric  Religion?  Raimon  Panikkar'ʹs  Pluralistic  Theology  of  Religions,  140.  Cf.  Panikkar,  
"ʺThe  Meaning  of  Christ'ʹs  Name  in  the  Universal  Economy  of  Salvation,"ʺ  255-­‐‑256.  
224  For  Panikkar  it  means  the  nucleus  of  a  human  being  that  is  involved  in  personal  relationships.  

Komulainen,  An  Emerging  Cosmotheandric  Religion?  Raimon  Panikkar'ʹs  Pluralistic  Theology  of  Religions,  141.  
225  Panikkar,  "ʺThe  Meaning  of  Christ'ʹs  Name  in  the  Universal  Economy  of  Salvation,"ʺ  242.  

226  Dupuis,  Jesus  Christ  at  the  Encounter  of  World  Religions,  188.  
earlier  that  Panikkar  did  operate  within  the  advaitic  tradition.227  MacPherson  rightly  
points  out  that,  
Because  he  is  wrestling  with  experiential  systems,  especially  the  Advaita  Vedanta  system  
and  the  term  cosmotheandrism,  the  concept  of  history  shifts  from  a  Western  to  an  
Eastern  understanding.  Since  this  shift  is  not  always  explicit,  Panikkar  is  often  
misunderstood.228  
 
Therefore,  it  is  important  we  look  briefly  into  what  advaita  Vedanta  is  and  how  it  
continues  to  be  a  major  source  of  doing  Christology  in  the  Indian  context.  
 
5.1. Advaita  Vedanta  and  its  contribution  towards  Indian  Christology  

Advaita  Vedanta  is  probably  the  Indian  system  that  is  most  frequently  considered  
for  theological  purposes,  has  usually  been  presented  as  a  monistic,  mystical,  or  
philosophical  system  which  raises  for  the  theologian  the  issue  of  non-­‐‑dualism,  the  
impersonality  of  the  divine  reality  of  the  world  etc.  
That  brings  us  to  the  question:  what  is  Advaita  Vedanta?  According  to  the  
Upanishads,  Advaita  philosophy  can  be  grasped  in  four  mahavakyas  (great  sayings).  One  
of  the  four  mahavakyas  points  to  the  fact  of  the  ultimate  and  essential  oneness  of  
individual  self  and  of  Supreme  Self,  and  the  Reality  behind  both  being,  Brahman.  Within  
the  Advaita  tradition,  two  strands  about  Brahman  are  evident:  Nirguna  Brahman,  the  
sublime  divine  reality  so  transcendent  that  it  stands  beyond  all  attributes,  and  Saguna  
Brahman,  a  concept  of  the  divine  which  includes  attributes  similar  to  the  personal  God  
of  monotheism.229  The  founding  proponent  of  Advaita,  Sri  Shankaracharya  (788-­‐‑820  CE),  
commonly  known  as  Sankara,  adopts  the  first  position.  Despite  the  fact  that  Hinduism  
espouses  myriads  of  gods  and  goddesses,  Nirguna  Brahman  has  become  the  dominant  
Hindu  concept  of  ultimate  reality,  of  the  truly  divine.230  

                                                                                               
227  His  understanding  of  person  is  related  to  the  Advaitic  ātman  which  is  dynamic  and  extensive,  
transcending  the  universe  and  also  despite  its  infiniteness,  ātman  is  also  the  center  of  everything.  Caution  
should  be  maintained  here  because  it  is  also  noted  that  Panikkar’s  vision  and  the  classical  Advaita  Vedanta  
differs  especially  where  criticizes  absolute  monism  and  stresses  pluralism.  Komulainen,  An  Emerging  
Cosmotheandric  Religion?  Raimon  Panikkar'ʹs  Pluralistic  Theology  of  Religions,  144.  
228  MacPherson,  A  Critical  Reading  of  the  Development  of  Raimon  Panikkar'ʹs  Thought  on  the  Trinity,  109.  

229  Moses  P.  P.  Penumaka,  "ʺLuther  and  Shankara:  Two  Ways  of  Salvation  in  the  Indian  Context,"ʺ  Dialog:  A  

Journal  of  Theology  45,  no.  3  (Fall  2006):  252-­‐‑253.  

230  Ibid.  
 It  should  be  considered  that  there  are  other  Vedantas,  Visistadvaita  Vedanta  of  
Ramanuja  and  Dvaita  Vedanta  of  Madhva.231  It  is,  however,  a  consequence  of  the  
profundity  and  intellectual  vigour  of  Sankara  that  Vedanta  in  general  is  viewed  mostly  
according  to  his  mode.  And  there  are  reasons  to  believe  that  Advaita  Vedanta  has  been  
the  dominant  school  of  Hindu  thought  since  the  time  of  Sankara.232  It  won’t  be  an  
exaggeration  to  say  that  ‘Sankara'ʹs  influence  on  Hindu  metaphysical  thought  is  perhaps  
even  greater  than  that  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  on  Roman  Catholic  systematic  
theology.’233  In  this  mode  of  thought,  the  bhakti  experience  and  expression  of  the  
twoness  is  regarded  ultimately  as  inferior  to  the  experience  of  non-­‐‑duality,  which  by  its  
very  nature  and  demand  cannot  contain  or  be  contained  in  any  forms  whatsoever.  In  
the  final  analysis,  as  well  as  experience,  either  there  is  a  radical  negation  of  all  forms,  in  
uttering  neti,  neti,  or  there  is  an  affirmation—essentially  more  congenial  to  the  Hindu  
mind—of  existence  (sat)  not  as  this  or  that  but  as  such,  consciousness  (cit)  not  of  any  
content  but  turned  upon  itself,  experience  (ananda)  not  of  anything  other  but  of  itself  
wrapped  in  its  own  delight.234  
The  real  precursor  of  Shankara’s  Advaita  Vedanta  is  the  earliest  systematic  
treatment  of  the  principle  thesis  of  the  Upanishads  that  “Brahman  or  the  Absolute  is  
alone  real  and  all  else  is  maya  or  appearance”  contained  in  Gaudapada’s  commentary  
on  Mandukya  Upanishad.235  Etymologically,  a-­‐‑dvaita  means  the  negation  of  all  duality.  
Metaphysically  Advaita  means  non-­‐‑duality.  It  is  the  philosophy  of  absolute  non-­‐‑dualism  
as  it  recognizes  that  only  Brahman,  the  pure  consciousness,  as  real.  
When  one  studies  Sankara’s  Advaita  philosophy,  there  is  no  eternal  room  for  
personal  history,  personal  struggles,  pain  or  sorrow,  etc.  The  underside  of  Advaita  
philosophy  is  that  it  declares  our  victimage  to  injustice  or  our  marginalization  due  to  
caste  as  less  than  fully  real,  as  illusory.  The  world  and  its  finite  history  appear  to  exist  
only  to  the  ignorant,  to  those  who  have  not  attained  self-­‐‑realization.  Such  unrealized  
souls  have  not  yet  transcended  the  duality  of  subject  and  object,  individual  and  world,  
devotee  and  God.  They  have  not  yet  attained  to  the  realization  of  the  non-­‐‑duality  of  
                                                                                               
231  These  are  philosophically  more  hospitable  to  the  path  of  bhakti.  
232  Bradley  Malkovsky,  "ʺAdvaita  Vedanta  and  Christian  Faith,"ʺ  Journal  of  Ecumenical  Studies  36,  no.  3-­‐‑4  
(Summer-­‐‑Fall  1999):  399.  
233  Ibid.  

234  Ravi  Ravindra,  "ʺUniqueness  and  oneness  in  the  lion'ʹs  roar:  Vedanta  and  Sikh  heritage,"ʺ  Dialogue  &  

Alliance  5,  no.  3  (Fall  1991):  14.  

235  Ramakant  A.  Sinari,  The  Structure  of  Indian  Thought  (Springfield:  Charles  C.  Thomas  Publishers,  1970),  

105.  
(nirguna)  Brahman,  the  sole  Being  (sat  )  which  is  also  pure  and  changeless  consciousness  
(cit  ).  Brahman  is  ultimately  real.  Our  finite  and  ephemeral  world  is  an  illusory  
appearance;  the  individual  soul  (jiva)  is  Brahman  alone,  not  other.236  Even  Arvind  points  
out  that  “Reality  is  thus  reduced  to  the  Spirit  in  Advaita  Vedanta.”237  Plurality  may  be  
allowed  by  a  Vedantist,  but  only  at  a  lower  level  of  relative  truth,  of  appearance,  and  of  
ignorance.  Vedanta  thus  offers  a  classic  case  of  ecumenism  by  condescension:  the  other  is  
also  right—after  all  as  the  Rig  Veda  (1.164.46)  says,  "ʺReality  is  one;  the  wise  speak  of  it  
in  many  ways"ʺ—but  as  long  as  the  other  wishes  to  be  distinct,  he  declares  his  ignorance.  
In  spite  of  the  saying  of  the  Rig  Veda  no  Vedantist  philosopher  would  consider  anybody  
wise  unless  he  spoke  of  reality  only  in  one  way!  Not  Gautama  the  Buddha,  nor  Jesus  the  
Christ,  nor  Guru  Nanak.238  Distinctions  are  just  not  considered  a  mark  of  high  vision,  
and  are  mere  appearances.  
Another  area  that  needs  to  be  touched  upon  and  which  is  so  crucial  for  our  
research  is  that:  Vedanta,  and  in  particular  Advaita  Vedanta,  by  assuming  a  vantage  point  
which  in  fact  is  not  in  the  experience  of  the  vast  majority  of  Vedantists,  who  cannot  be  
assumed  to  be  the  perfect  adhikaris  of  the  guhyatam  rahasyam  (or  rahasyasya  rahasyam,  the  
most  esoteric  truth),  relegates  the  whole  realm  of  space-­‐‑time,  particularity,  uniqueness,  
and  history  to  a  lower  level,  and  somehow  manages  to  denigrate  it  in  social  practice.  
Also,  from  a  Vedantist  point  of  view,  there  cannot  be  any  real  point  to  the  distinct  
manifestations  of  reality  (which  is  nothing  but  Brahman)  because  they  are  mere  
variations.239  Question  can  be  raised  to  such  a  position:  Is  it  an  exquisite  Chinese  vase  
the  same  as  a  lump  of  clay?  Perhaps  this  devaluation  of  history  is  the  greatest  point  of  
distinction  of  Vedanta  from  the  Abrahamic  tradition.240  
The  normal  Advaitic  view  of  Christian  faith  is  fairly  uniform  and  can  be  easily  
summed  up.  This  view  has  been  much  influenced  by  Swami  Vivekananda.  He  gave  
high  importance  to  devotional  spirituality,  but  made  all  religious  experience,  including  

                                                                                               
236  Penumaka,  "ʺLuther  and  Shankara:  Two  Ways  of  Salvation  in  the  Indian  Context,"ʺ  261.  
237  Arvind  Sharma,  "ʺWho  Speaks  for  Hinduism?  A  Perspective  from  Advaita  Vedanta,"ʺ  in  Journal  of  the  
American  Academy  of  Religion  (December  2000),  755.  
238  Ravindra,  "ʺUniqueness  and  oneness  in  the  lion'ʹs  roar:  Vedanta  and  Sikh  heritage,"ʺ  13.  

239  In  an  analogy  to  be  found  in  the  Chandogya  Upanishad  (6.1.4)  and  much  quoted  and  admired  by  the  

Vedantists,  it  is  said  that  clay  alone  is  real,  while  its  modifications  are  only  names  arising  from  speech.  In  
the  hands  of  someone  without  sensitivity  to  beauty,  this  is  bound  to  lead  to  a  facile  and  destructive  
dismissal  of  all  art,  uniqueness,  and  individuality.  
240  Also  from  Sikhism.  Cf.  Ravindra,  "ʺUniqueness  and  oneness  in  the  lion'ʹs  roar:  Vedanta  and  Sikh  

heritage,"ʺ  19.  
that  of  Christians,  ultimately  subordinate  to  the  supreme  intuition  of  non-­‐‑duality.  For  
him,  all  religions  find  their  fulfilment  in  Advaita.241  
Advaitins  normally  espouse  an  acosmic  monism,  it  is  not  surprising  that  they  
view  Christianity  as  an  inferior  religion  because  of  its  orientation  to  a  personal  God  at  
work  in  creation  and  because  of  the  primacy  it  gives  to  love  over  enlightenment.242  It  is  
also  noted  that  it  is  not  very  uncommon  for  advaitins  to  regard  talk  of  a  personal  God  as  
an  anthropomorphic  projection.  One  also  observe  that  from  the  perspective  of  
mainstream  Advaita,  when  Christians  speak  of  the  centrality  of  the  incarnation  and  
resurrection  of  Christ  for  human  salvation,  when  hope  is  placed  in  the  eschatological  
consummation  of  the  world  brought  about  in  accord  with  a  divine  plan,  they  reveal  that  
they  are  trapped  on  the  lower  level  of  awareness  (vyavahāra-­‐‑avasthā)  in  which  
distinctions  are  perceived  and  trusted  as  real.243  For  them  Christians  need  to  transcend  
the  distinction  of  creator  and  creature,  God  and  world,  self  and  other  and  realize  the  
infinite  impersonal  Brahman,  which  is  without  distinction  and  relation.  There  is  also  a  
widespread  conviction  among  educated  Hindus  that  whatever  truth  exists  in  other  
religions  is  already  present  in  Hinduism  in  one  form  or  another,  since  Hinduism  
witnesses  to  an  absolute  eternal  truth  that  is  unchanging.  A  revelation  that  claims  to  
take  place  through  the  medium  of  history  cannot  really  add  anything  substantially  new  
to  the  changeless  truths  of  human  and  divine  nature.244  
From  the  Christian  point  of  view  among  the  many  great  teachers  of  Advaita,  
Sankara  is  one  of  the  most  familiar  to  Christian  theologians  seeking  to  grasp  the  
meaning  and  significance  of  Hindu  teaching  on  non-­‐‑duality  for  Christian  theology  and  
spirituality.245  Now,  there  is  something  common  to  Vivekananda,  Gandhi,  
Radhakrishnan  and  Raimundo  Panikkar’s  view  about  Jesus  Christ:  advaitic  Christ.  
An  Advaitic  Christ246  raises  fundamental  questions  about  the  historicity  of  the  person  of  
Jesus  Christ.  There  are  some  Indian  theologians  who  maintain  that  in  an  advaitic  

                                                                                               
241  Bradley  Malkovsky,  "ʺSwami  Vivekananda  and  Bede  Griffiths  on  Religious  Pluralism:  Hindu  and  
Christian  Approaches  to  Truth,"ʺ  Horizons  25,  no.  2  (Fall  1998):  217-­‐‑237.  
242  Malkovsky,  "ʺAdvaita  Vedanta  and  Christian  Faith,"ʺ  404.  

243  Ibid.,  405.  

244  Ibid.,  421.  

245  According  to  Helbfass  the  first  reference  by  a  Christian  theologian  to  Sankara  is  in  Robert  de  Nobili’s  

Informatio  de  quibusdam  moribus  nationis  indicae  (1613).  Cf.  Wilhelm  Halbfass,  India  and  Europe:  An  Essay  in  
Understanding  (Albany,  New  York:  State  University  of  New  York,  1988),  40.  
246  For  a  representative  work  on  Advaitic  Christology  refer  to  K.  P.  Aleaz,  "ʺIndian  Jesus,"ʺ  in  Indian  

Theological  Case  Studies,  ed.  Henry  Wilson(Madurai:  The  Tamil  Nadu  Theological  Seminary,  1986),  13-­‐‑15;  
position  there  is  no  dualism  of  historical  Jesus  and  Christ  of  faith  because  there  is  space  
for  both.  However,  our  evaluation  of  some  of  these  positions  points  to  the  fact  that  that  
is  not  the  case  always.    
Jeremiah  rightly  points  why  advaitic  Christ  can  lead  to  a  Christ  ‘de-­‐‑historicized’  
‘unknown’  to  the  Gospel  traditions.  He  says,  
The  Christian  God  is  a  personal  God  and  not  a  state  of  being  or  consciousness  like  
Brahman  conceptualized  by  Sankara.  The  Abrahamic  religions  believe  in  a  God,  who  
historically  acts  in  the  human  life  and  participates  in  their  life,  leading  them  on  in  their  
earthly  sojourn.  At  the  deep  structural  level  there  is  incompatibility  between  these  
notions.247  
 
Sara  Grant  also  maintains  that  “...  biblical  tradition  and  Christian  faith  are  rooted  
in  history,  and  their  historical  character  is  essential  to  their  identity,  Hinduism  has  no  
such  preoccupation  with  history.”248  
Further  stating  the  importance  of  historical  Jesus  in  the  seemingly  sidelining  
context  of  Advaita  Vedanta,  Jeremiah  states,  
Conceptualising  Jesus  as  Jiva-­‐‑atman  is  very  limited  in  its  scope.  In  fact,  in  this  theming  
the  historicity  of  Jesus  has  seemingly  no  place  as  it  does  not  has  a  place  for  the  
phenomenal  reality.  Jesus  is  just  a  faint  reflection  of  the  ultimate  being,  and  needs  no  
attention,  but  only  when  he  becomes  one  with  Brahman.  His  divinity  is  universalized  at  
the  expense  of  his  important  humanity  (transcendental  preferred  over  phenomenal  
world).  ....  If  we  stand  by  the  notion  that  the  sensory  perception  binds  down  a  person,  
jiva,  in  this  ignorant  world  of  illusion,  all  that  Gospel  narratives  of  Jesus'ʹ  ministry  
becomes  meaningless.  Jesus  did  actively  participate  in  experiencing  the  Kingdom  of  God  
on  this  earth,  he  did  not  try  to  consider  this  world  as  maya  or  illusion  and  take  a  path  of  
renunciation  and  negation.  In  this  light,  the  effort  to  use  the  Brahman-­‐‑Atman  conceptual  
framework  to  understand  God-­‐‑Jesus  relationship  seriously  undermines  and  robs  the  
notion  of  salvation  and  liberation  Jesus  advocated.249  
 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
K.  P.  Aleaz,  Jesus  in  Neo-­‐‑Vedanta:  A  Meeting  of  Hinduism  and  Christianity,  World  Religions  Relationship  
Series,  002  (New  Delhi:  Kant  Publications,  1995);  K.  P.  Aleaz,  An  Indian  Jesus  from  Sankara'ʹs  Thought  
(Calcutta:  Punthi  Pustak,  1997);  K.  P.  Aleaz,  "ʺAn  Indian  Understanding  of  Jesus,"ʺ  Asia  Journal  of  Theology  
12,  no.  1  (April  1998):  118-­‐‑138.  
247  Anderson  Jeremiah,  "ʺInculturation:  A  Subaltern  Critique  of  K.  P.  Aleaz'ʹs    "ʺIndian  Christian  Vedanta."ʺ,"ʺ  

Asia  Journal  of  Theology  21,  no.  2  (2007):  405.  

248  Quoted  in  Malkovsky,  "ʺAdvaita  Vedanta  and  Christian  Faith,"ʺ  419.  

249  Jeremiah,  "ʺInculturation:  A  Subaltern  Critique  of  K.  P.  Aleaz'ʹs    "ʺIndian  Christian  Vedanta."ʺ,"ʺ  405.  
Conclusion  

An  attempt  was  made  in  this  article  to  look  into  the  Christological  formulations  
of  a  prominent  Hindu-­‐‑Christian  theologian:  Raimundo  Panikkar.  In  relating  the  Hindu  
and  Christian  traditions  he  has  been  a  prominent  figure  as  a  bridge-­‐‑maker.  We  have  
seen  how  his  Christological  ideas  arose  out  of  his  grappling  with  the  relationship  
between  the  two  living  religious  traditions:  Christianity  and  Hinduism.  In  his  attempt  
to  make  Christ  relevant  to  the  Indian  mind  he  took  the  religio-­‐‑philosophical  traditions  
of  India  seriously.  For  him  the  important  aspect  of  Christology  is  not  the  issue  of  the  
philosophical  and  theological  problems  connected  with  the  affirmation  of  Jesus  of  
Nazareth,  true  God  and  true  human,  but  encountering  him  as  true  God  and  true  
human.  In  his  attempt  to  present  Christ  to  the  Indian  mind  he  tries  to  overcome  the  
limitations  of  the  understanding  of  Christ  in  the  historical  category,  because  he  thinks  
historical  category  is  only  one  of  the  aspects  of  reality  not  the  whole.  Agreed,  historical  
categories  are  only  one  of  the  aspects  of  reality  but  that  doesn’t  warrant  a  Christian  
theologian  to  sideline  the  historicity  of  Jesus  and  its  relevance  to  our  present  context.  As  
noted  during  our  study  Panikkar  often  swings  between  historical  and  trans-­‐‑historical.  
He  wants  to  hold  on  to  both  which  is  appreciated  but  to  make  Christ  relevant  to  the  
Hindu  mind  he  ends  up  sidelining  the  historical  Jesus.  
Also  observed  earlier  the  influence  of  Hindu  philosophical  tradition  –  advaita  
Vedanta  is  very  prominent  on  Panikkar.  There  are  some  who  would  argue  that  he  was  
not  influenced  by  Vedanta  philosophy  in  his  Christological  formulations.  As  noted  
earlier  there  are  overwhelming  evidences  shown  by  panikkarian  theologians  that  he  
was  influenced  by  advaita  Vedanta  and  he  made  use  of  it  in  his  Christological  
arguments.250  It  is  also  noted,  that  extensive  reliance  on  advaita  Vedanta  too  played  a  
major  role  in  the  sidelining  of  the  historical  relevance  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  Indian  
context.      
One  also  observes  that  some  have  misunderstood  and  misrepresented  Panikkar’s  
ideas.  Understood  rightly  he  stands  as  the  bridge  between  the  two  religious  traditions  
each  of  which  has  its  own  ethos  and  cannot  be  read  through  alien  framework  or  
interchange  of  glasses.  Each  has  to  be  understood  under  its  own  terms  and  only  analogy  
and  parallelism  could  be  used  to  salvage  what  is  of  relevance  for  one'ʹs  own  tradition.  
The  moot  question  however  is:  could  we  get  rid  of  the  bridge  after  we  have  made  the  

                                                                                               
250  Cf.  Footnote  no.  154.  
crossing?  Perhaps,  yes,  and  perhaps,  no,  depending  on  what  one  wants  to  do  in  the  
process  of  finding  a  relevant  Indian  Christology.
  
 
"ʺRaimon  Panikkar"ʺ  http://www.raimonpanikkar.org/  (accessed  November  30,  2010).  
 
Ahlstrand,  Kajsa.  Fundamental  Openness.  An  Enquiry  into  Raimundo  Panikkar'ʹs  Theological  
Vision  and  its  Presuppositions  Studia  Missionalia  Upsaliensia  LVII.  Uppsala:  
Uppsala  University,  1993.  
 
Aleaz,  K.  P.  "ʺIndian  Jesus."ʺ  In  Indian  Theological  Case  Studies,  edited  by  Henry  Wilson,  
13-­‐‑15.  Madurai:  The  Tamil  Nadu  Theological  Seminary,  1986.  
 
Aleaz,  K.  P.  Jesus  in  Neo-­‐‑Vedanta:  A  Meeting  of  Hinduism  and  Christianity  World  Religions  
Relationship  Series,  002.  New  Delhi:  Kant  Publications,  1995.  
 
Aleaz,  K.  P.  An  Indian  Jesus  from  Sankara'ʹs  Thought.  Calcutta:  Punthi  Pustak,  1997.  
 
Aleaz,  K.  P.  "ʺAn  Indian  Understanding  of  Jesus."ʺ  Asia  Journal  of  Theology  12,  no.  1  (April  
1998):  118-­‐‑138.  
 
Boyd,  Robin  H.  S.  India  and  the  Latin  Captivity  of  the  Church.  The  Cultural  Context  of  the  
Gospel.  Cambridge:  Cambridge  University  Press,  1974.  
 
Boyd,  Robin  H.  S.  Kristadvaita:  A  Theology  for  India.  Madras:  CLS,  1977.  
 
Boyd,  Robin  H.  S.  An  Introduction  to  Indian  Christian  Theology.  New  Delhi:  ISPCK,  1994.  
 
Chethimattam,  J.  B.  "ʺR.  Panikkar'ʹs  Approach  to  Christology."ʺ  The  Indian  Journal  of  
Theology  23,  no.  3&4  (July-­‐‑Dec.  1974):  219-­‐‑222.  
 
Cousins,  Ewert  H.  "ʺPanikkar'ʹs  Advaitic  Trinitarianism."ʺ  In  The  Intercultural  Challenge  of  
Raimon  Panikkar,  edited  by  Joseph  Prabhu,  119-­‐‑130.  Maryknoll,  New  York:  Orbis  
Books,  1996.  
 
Coward,  Harold  G.  "ʺPanikkar'ʹs  Approach  to  Interreligious  Dialogue."ʺ  Cross  Currents  29,  
no.  2  (Summer  1979):  183-­‐‑189,  192.  
 
D'ʹSa,  Francis  X.  "ʺThe  Advaita  Principle  of  Raimon  Panikkar  and  Trinty."ʺ  In  Negotiating  
Borders:  Theological  Explorations  in  the  Global  Era.  Essays  in  Honour  of  Prof.  Felix  
 Wilfred,  edited  by  Patrick  Gnanapragasam  and  Elisabeth  Schüssler  Fiorenza,  158-­‐‑
166.  Delhi:  ISPCK,  2008.  
 
D'ʹSa,  Francis  X.  "ʺGlossary  of  Panikkarian  Ex-­‐‑Pressions."ʺ  In  Raimon  Panikkar:  Being  
Beyond  Borders;  A  Commemorative  Volume,  edited  by  Johnson  J.  Puthenpurackal,  
ACPI  Special  Series  2,  630-­‐‑646.  Bangalore  &  Eluru:  ATC  &  ACPI,  2012.  
 
D'ʹSa,  Francis  X.  "ʺRelevance  of  Raimon  Panikkar:  A  Preview  of  His  Thought."ʺ  In  Raimon  
Panikkar:  Being  Beyond  Borders;  A  Commemorative  Volume,  edited  by  Johnson  J.  
Puthenpurackal,  ACPI  Special  Series  2,  40-­‐‑58.  Bangalore  &  Eluru:  ATC  &  ACPI,  
2012.  
 
Dupuis,  Jacques.  Jesus  Christ  at  the  Encounter  of  World  Religions  Faith  Meets  Faith  Series.  
Maryknoll,  New  York:  Orbis  Books,  1991.  
 
Dupuis,  Jacques.  Towards  a  Christian  Theology  of  Religious  Pluralism.  2nd  ed.  Maryknoll,  
New  York:  Orbis  Books,  1998.  
 
George,  Samuel.  The  Historical  Particularity  of  Jesus:  A  Dialogue  with  the  Hindu  View  of  
History.  Kolkata,  India:  Punthi  Pustak,  2014.  
 
George,  Samuel.  "ʺThe  Emergence  of  Christology  in  the  Early  Church:  a  Methodological  
Survey  with  Particular  Reference  to  the  Anti-­‐‑Heretical  Polemics  of  Irenaeus  of  
Lyons."ʺ  Asia  Journal  of  Theology  24,  no.  2  (October  2010):  219-­‐‑253.  
 
Griffiths,  Bede.  Christian  Ashram:  Essays  towards  a  Hindu-­‐‑Christian  Dialogue.  London:  
Darton,  Longman  &  Todd,  1966.  
 
Grimes,  William,  "ʺRaimon  Panikkar,  Catholic  Theologian,  Is  Dead  at  91"ʺ  
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/us/05panikkar.html?_r=1  (accessed  
September  5,  2010).  
 
Halbfass,  Wilhelm.  India  and  Europe:  An  Essay  in  Understanding.  Albany,  New  York:  
State  University  of  New  York,  1988.  
 
Jeremiah,  Anderson.  "ʺInculturation:  A  Subaltern  Critique  of  K.  P.  Aleaz'ʹs    "ʺIndian  
Christian  Vedanta."ʺ."ʺ  Asia  Journal  of  Theology  21,  no.  2  (2007):  398-­‐‑411.  
 
Komulainen,  Jyri.  An  Emerging  Cosmotheandric  Religion?  Raimon  Panikkar'ʹs  Pluralistic  
Theology  of  Religions.  Helsinki:  University  of  Helsinki,  2003.  
  
MacPherson,  Camilia  Gangasingh.  A  Critical  Reading  of  the  Development  of  Raimon  
Panikkar'ʹs  Thought  on  the  Trinity.  Lanham,  Maryland:  University  Press  of  
America,  1996.  
 
Malkovsky,  Bradley.  "ʺSwami  Vivekananda  and  Bede  Griffiths  on  Religious  Pluralism:  
Hindu  and  Christian  Approaches  to  Truth."ʺ  Horizons  25,  no.  2  (Fall  1998):  217-­‐‑
237.  
 
Malkovsky,  Bradley.  "ʺAdvaita  Vedanta  and  Christian  Faith."ʺ  Journal  of  Ecumenical  
Studies  36,  no.  3-­‐‑4  (Summer-­‐‑Fall  1999):  397-­‐‑422.  
 
Maniquet,  Scott,  "ʺRaimon  Panikkar,  'ʹtheologian,  mystic,  priest  and  poet'ʹ  dies"ʺ  
http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/09/02/raimon-­‐‑panikkar-­‐‑%E2%80%98theologian-­‐‑
mystic-­‐‑priest-­‐‑and-­‐‑poet%E2%80%99-­‐‑dies/  (accessed  September  4,  2010).  
 
Mattathilanickel,  Pradeep.  "ʺCosmotheandric  Religion:  Panikkar'ʹs  Emerging  
Philosophy."ʺ  In  Raimon  Panikkar:  Being  Beyond  Borders;  A  Commemorative  Volume,  
edited  by  Johnson  J.  Puthenpurackal,  ACPI  Special  Series  2,  526-­‐‑544.  Bangalore  &  
Eluru:  ATC  &  ACPI,  2012.  
 
McGrath,  Alister  E.  The  Making  of  Modern  German  Christology:  1750-­‐‑1990.  2nd  ed.  
Leicester,  UK/Grand  Rapids,  Michigan:  APOLLOS/Zondervan  Publishing  House,  
1994.  
 
Menacherry,  Cheriyan.  Christ:  The  Mystery  in  History.  A  Critical  Study  on  the  Christology  
of  Raymond  Panikkar.  Frankfurt  am  Main:  Peter  Lang,  1996.  
 
Mitra,  Kana.  Catholicism-­‐‑Hinduism.  Vedantic  Investigation  of  Raimundo  Panikkar'ʹs  Attempt  
at  Bridge  Building.  Lanham:  University  Press  of  America,  1987.  
 
Mookenthottam,  Antony.  Indian  Theological  Tendencies:  Approaches  and  Problems  for  
Further  Research  as  Seen  in  the  Works  of  Some  Leading  Indian  Theologians.  Berne,  
Switzerland:  Peter  Lang,  1978.  
 
Mookenthottam,  Antony.  Towards  a  Theology  in  the  Indian  Context.  Madras:  CLS,  1980.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimon.  "ʺThe  Meaning  of  Christ'ʹs  Name  in  the  Universal  Economy  of  
Salvation."ʺ  In  Service  and  Salvation  (Nagpur  Theological  Conference  on  
 Evangelization),  edited  by  Joseph  Pathrapankal,  235-­‐‑263.  Bangalore:  Theological  
Publication  of  India,  1973.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimon.  A  Dwelling  Place  for  Wisdom.  Kentucky:  Westminster  John  Knox  
Press,  1993.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimon.  The  Cosmotheandric  Experience:  Emerging  Religious  Consciousness.  First  
Indian  Edition  ed.,  Edited  by  Scott  Eastham.  New  Delhi:  Motilal  Banarsidass  
Publishers  Private  Limited,  1998.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimon.  The  Fullness  of  Man:  A  Christophany.  Translated  by  Alfred  DiLascia.  
Delhi:  ISPCK,  2006.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimon.  The  Rhythm  of  Being:  The  Gifford  Lectures.  Maryknoll,  New  York:  
Orbis  Books,  2010.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimon.  "ʺA  Christophany  for  our  times."ʺ  Theology  Digest  39,  no.  1  (Spring  
1992):  3-­‐‑21.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimundo.  "ʺThe  Relation  of  Christians  to  their  Non-­‐‑Christian  Surroundings."ʺ  
In  Christian  Revelation  and  World  Religions,  edited  by  Josef  Neuner.  London:  Burns  
&  Oates,  1967.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimundo.  The  Trinity  and  World  Religions.  Icon-­‐‑Person-­‐‑Mystery  Inter-­‐‑Religious  
Dialogue  Series,  No.  4.  Bangalore/Madras:  CISRS/CLS,  1970.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimundo.  "ʺThe  Meaning  of  Christ'ʹs  Name  in  the  Universal  Economy  of  
Salvation."ʺ  In  Evangelization,  Dialogue  and  Development,  edited  by  M.  Dhavamony,  
195-­‐‑218.  Rome:  Documenta  Missionalia,  1972.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimundo.  Salvation  in  Christ:  Concreteness  and  Universality,  the  Supername  
Inauguration  Lecture  at  the  Ecumenical  Institute  of  Advanced  Theological  Study.  
Tantur,  Jerusalem,  1972.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimundo.  Worship  and  Secular  Man:  An  essay  on  the  Liturgical  Nature  of  Man,  
considering  Secularization  as  a  Major  Phenomenon  of  our  time  and  Worship  as  an  
apparent  fact  of  all  times;  A  Study  towards  an  integral  Anthropology.  Maryknoll,  New  
York:  Orbis  Books,  1973.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimundo.  Myth,  Faith  and  Hermeneutics.  Cross-­‐‑Cultural  Studies.  New  York:  
Paulist  Press,  1979.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimundo.  The  Trinity  and  the  Religious  Experience  of  Man,  Icon-­‐‑Person-­‐‑Mystery.  
London:  Darton,  Longman  and  Todd,  1979.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimundo.  "ʺIndian  Theology:  A  Theological  Mutation."ʺ  In  Theologizing  in  
India.  Selection  of  Papers  presented  at  the  Seminar  held  in  Poona  on  October  26-­‐‑30,  
1978,  edited  by  M.  Amaladoss,  T.  K.  John  and  G.  Gispert-­‐‑Sauch,  23-­‐‑42.  Bangalore:  
Theological  Publications  in  India,  1981.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimundo.  The  Unknown  Christ  of  Hinduism.  Towards  an  Ecumenical  
Christophany.  Revised  and  enlarged  ed.  Bangalore:  Asian  Trading  Corporation,  
1982.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimundo.  "ʺInstead  of  a  Foreword:  An  Open  Letter."ʺ  In  Theological  Approach  
and  Understanding  of  Religion.  Jean  Danielou  and  Raimundo  Panikkar:  A  Study  in  
Contrast,  V-­‐‑XIV.  Bangalore:  Kristu  Jyoti  College,  1987.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimundo.  "ʺThe  Invisible  Harmony:  A  Universal  Theory  of  Religion  or  a  
Cosmic  Confidence  in  Reality?"ʺ  In  Towards  a  Universal  Theology  of  Religions,  edited  
by  Leonard  Swidler,  118-­‐‑153.  Maryknoll,  New  York:  Orbis  Books,  1987.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimundo.  "ʺThe  Jordan,  the  Tiber,  and  the  Ganges:  Three  Kairological  
Moments  of  Christic  Self-­‐‑Consciousness."ʺ  In  The  Myth  of  Christian  Uniqueness:  
Towards  a  Pluralistic  Theology  of  Religions,  edited  by  John  Hick  and  Paul  F.  Knitter,  
89-­‐‑116.  London:  SCM  Press  Ltd,  1987.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimundo.  "ʺThe  Christian  Challenge  for  the  Third  Millennium."ʺ  In  Christian  
Mission  and  Interreligious  Dialogue,  edited  by  Paul  Mojzes  and  Leonard  Swidler,  
Religions  in  Dialogue  4,  113-­‐‑125.  Lewiston/Qwenston/Lampster:  The  Edwin  
Mellen  Press,  1990.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimundo.  "ʺCan  Theology  Be  Transcultural?"ʺ  In  Pluralism  and  Oppression:  
Theology  in  World  Perspective,  edited  by  Paul  F.  Knitter,  The  Annual  Publication  of  
the  College  Theology  Society  1988,  Vol.  34,  3-­‐‑22.  Lanham,  New  York:  University  
Press  of  America,  1991.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimundo.  "ʺThe  New  Role  of  Christian  Universities  in  Asia."ʺ  In  Asian  Cultural  
Studies,  International  Christian  University  Publications  III  A,  169-­‐‑185.  Mitaka,  
 Tokyo:  International  Christian  University,  Institute  of  Asian  Cultural  Studies,  
1993.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimundo.  "ʺPresent-­‐‑Day  University  Education  and  World  Cultures."ʺ  In  Asian  
Cultural  Studies,  International  Christian  University  Publications  III  A,  187-­‐‑198.  
Mitaka,  Tokyo:  International  Christian  University,  Institute  of  Asian  Cultural  
Studies,  1993.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimundo.  "ʺĪsvara  and  Christ  as  a  Philosophical  Problem."ʺ  Religion  and  
Society  VI,  no.  3  (October  1959):  8-­‐‑16.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimundo.  "ʺFaith  and  Belief:  On  the  Multi-­‐‑Religious  Experience."ʺ  Anglican  
Theological  Review  53,  no.  4  (October  1971):  219-­‐‑237.  
 
Panikkar,  Raimundo.  "ʺThe  Silence  of  the  Word:  Non-­‐‑Dualistic  Polarities."ʺ  Cross  Currents  
24,  no.  2  (Summer  -­‐‑  Fall,  1974):  154-­‐‑171.  
 
Panikkar,  Raymond.  Kerygma  und  Indien  zur  heilsgeschichtlichen  Begengung  mit  Indien.  
Hamburg:  Bergstedt,  1967.  
 
Panthanmackel,  George.  "ʺThe  Notion  of  Reality:  The  Vision  of  Reality."ʺ  In  Raimon  
Panikkar:  Being  Beyond  Borders;  A  Commemorative  Volume,  edited  by  Johnson  J.  
Puthenpurackal,  91-­‐‑107.  Bangalore  &  Eluru:  ATC  &  ACPI,,  2012.  
 
Parappally,  Jacob.  Emerging  Trends  in  Indian  Christology.  Bangalore:  IIS  Publications,  
1995.  
 
Parappally,  Jacob.  "ʺFrom  Christology  to  Christophany:  Panikkar'ʹs  Liberating  Vision  of  
Christ."ʺ  In  Raimon  Panikkar:  Being  Beyond  Borders;  A  Commemorative  Volume,  edited  
by  Johnson  J.  Puthenpurackal,  ACPI  Special  Series  2,  565-­‐‑578.  Bangalore  &  Eluru:  
ATC  &  ACPI,  2012.  
 
Penumaka,  Moses  P.  P.  "ʺLuther  and  Shankara:  Two  Ways  of  Salvation  in  the  Indian  
Context."ʺ  Dialog:  A  Journal  of  Theology  45,  no.  3  (Fall  2006):  252-­‐‑262.  
 
Prabhu,  Joseph.  "ʺLost  in  Translation:  Panikkar'ʹs  Intercultural  Odyssey."ʺ  In  The  
Intercultural  Challenge  of  Raimon  Panikkar,  edited  by  Joseph  Prabhu,  1-­‐‑21.  
Maryknoll,  New  York:  Orbis  Books,  1996.  
 
Prabhu,  Joseph,  "ʺRaimon  Panikkar,  'ʹapostle  of  inter-­‐‑faith  dialogue,'ʹ  dies"ʺ  
http://ncronline.org/news/spirituality/raimon-­‐‑panikkar-­‐‑apostle-­‐‑inter-­‐‑faith-­‐‑
dialogue-­‐‑dies  (accessed  November  30,  2010).  
 
Ravindra,  Ravi.  "ʺUniqueness  and  oneness  in  the  lion'ʹs  roar:  Vedanta  and  Sikh  heritage."ʺ  
Dialogue  &  Alliance  5,  no.  3  (Fall  1991):  10-­‐‑20.  
 
Selvanayagam,  Israel.  "ʺRevisiting  The  Unknown  Christ  of  Hinduism:  A  Tribute  to  
Raymundo  Panikkar."ʺ  Gurukul  Journal  of  Theological  Studies  XXI,  no.  2  (June  2010):  
61-­‐‑70.  
 
Sharma,  Arvind.  "ʺWho  Speaks  for  Hinduism?  A  Perspective  from  Advaita  Vedanta."ʺ  In  
Journal  of  the  American  Academy  of  Religion,  68,  751-­‐‑759,  December  2000.  
 
Sharpe,  Eric  J.  Not  to  Destroy  But  to  Fulfil:  The  Contribution  of  J.  N.  Farquhar  to  Protestant  
Missionary  Thought  in  India  before  1914  Studia  Missionalia  Upsaliensia,  V.  
Uppsala:  Swedish  Institute  of  Missionary  Research,  1965.  
 
Sinari,  Ramakant  A.  The  Structure  of  Indian  Thought.  Springfield:  Charles  C.  Thomas  
Publishers,  1970.