24 steps beyond dialectic, into the heart of the Real:
1. A stone is given, it rests in my palm, this thing evoking a sense of gratitude and joy;
2. This stone has qualities of stability, intelligibility and mystery (interconnectedness with all);
3. We make concepts of unity, knowing this stone as we know all stones;
4. Things are thus both sensible (it sits in my hand) and conceptual (it sits in my mind);
5. The stone and its concept are apprehended in mutual relation, invoking a ‘new’ reality, of relation;
6. We can make a temple out of many of these such stones. The contemplative sees the temple in the stone and the stone in the temple, indeed, sees the entire universe emerge, in this one view of relation.
7. As a temple is not only it’s stones, so Being is different from beings.
8. There is a prime Being.
9. Humans need to hold a stance of openness to admit the quasi-concept of Being.
10. Symbols can have Being.
11. Supreme entities (Gods) are too given the name Being.
12. entia – are all the beings in our perception, which with a formal jump becomes:
ens commune – which is an empty concept (of intellect), but which with an ontological jump into transcendence becomes;
ens realissimmum – which is a hierarchy of beings (evolving), which with a final plunge falls back into immanence, into the symbol of Being;
13. Aquinas tells us that the ‘ens commune’ is the negation of being – our intellect, or logos, ‘negates’ ontology, with an empty concept. Heidegger progresses beyond this, to say ‘the nothing is more original than the ‘not’, or negation’. In this way, it is possible to understand that the intellect has a seemingly superhuman power, embodied in our carnal existence, that is, it can put a ‘no’ to any being.
14. If Non-being is a function of our intellect, we may say Being embraces Non-Being, insofar as that idea enters into our field of consciousness. Non-Being can be interpreted two ways: dialectically, as contradictory to Being, and dialogically, as that which pierces our logos (knowing mind), without full consciousness, or awareness.
Beyond Non-Being, there is Silence (turiya) which we can denote by saying it is ‘neither-nor’, beyond logic or metaphor.
15. Speech actually invokes this Silence – we know Silence’s presence not by enunciation but by the fact that speech occurs within, within the background of, Silence. Being aligns with this Silence, not as consort to Non-Being, more in the presence of Emptiness.
16. In perceiving the stone we apprehend more than the stone, we apprehend too the ‘not-stone’ – a horizon of nothingness, out of which the stone emerges. This is the level of dialectic, this relative nothingness. Beyond the level of dialectic, the stone occurs as a dynamism on the horizon of Emptiness. There is no dialectic in this relation, the stone arises in absolute Emptiness.
17. Nothingness can be an object of our consciousness, it pertains to the logos; formless Emptiness cannot. At this point, there is no dialectic, Emptiness is not a negation of any affirmation, it is a blank horizon, beyond the impossible or possible.
Silence is that Emptiness from which sound emerges as sound. Pneuma or spirit is a Silence which does not suffocate the logos.
18. We do not have to negate Being in order to have ‘access’ to Emptiness. Whatever Being may be it is different from and irreducible to beings. The experience of Being belongs to the field of Emptiness.
19. Emptiness is outside of dialectic, even though Being and Non-Being (nothing) maintain a dialectical correlation.
20. There is no hermeneutic for a symbol – a symbol speaks directly to overcome the subject-object split, for those that see it and engage it. To say Being is a symbol is to affirm Being as neither merely objective nor purely subjective. To say that the symbol is a symbol only for those who discover it as a symbol is to affirm the existence of the symbol against the horizon of Emptiness.
21. To pay heed only to the material aspects of the stone results only in a crude empiricism; to concentrate on the horizon of Nothingness leaves a crude nihilism – these attitudes reduce to pluralism or monism, respectively. The advaitic intuition of every religion through time asks that we marry these two – the middle way which is neither one nor the other.
22. The advaitic intuition is not rational nor dialectic, it says ‘as well as’ without indulging in an either/or or perspectivalism. It emerges where the dynamism of knowledge is inverted – in touching, we know we are touched, in knowing, we are known, beyond the order of sense or intellect. A wholistic participation, from the purity of the heart.
23. The advaitic intuition does not need anthropology so much as anthropophany, where the spirit is present but not subordinated to the logos. Spirit discloses to us who, and what, we are.
24. The pebble in my hand is truly a revelation of Reality. Being is a metaphysical interpretation of reality. Non-being is a way to handle reality dialectically, Emptiness, mystically.
Being is the root, the dwelling place, and the foundation of everything. This ultimate essence, by which all is animated, that is truth, that is the atman, that art thou.
~ adapted from ‘The Destiny of Being’ in ‘The Rhythm of Being’ by Raimon Panikkar
An ancient legend has it that when God was creating the world, He was approached by four angels. The first one asked, “How are you doing it?” The second, “Why are you doing it?” The third, “Can I be of help?” The fourth, “What is it worth?”
The first was a scientist, the second, a philosopher; the third, an altruist; and the fourth, a real estate agent.
A fifth angel watched in wonder and applauded in sheer delight. This one was the mystic.
–Anthony de Mello, S.J. in The Heart of the Enlightened
Panikkar sounds interesting… which of his books would you recommend to start with?
Svatma’s poem about being stone. Better in the German original but I’d prefer you to know the words too:
“Of a stone’s joy, being worn away
Being humans we cannot know all that much of a stones joy, being worn away, simply because we are humans and not stones. Is there even such a thing as joy for a stone? A stone may be ancient and yet never have experienced joy. Or does a stone constantly experience joy?
I look at the round, smooth, grey-white, stone in front of me. It begins to speak to me. Just this one (even though there are countless stones lying on the long beach). The sea swashes and sings, entices my senses.
“I bathe in the waters of the sea and allow the waves to rinse my spirit,” says the stone slowly “I feel light and immaculate in the water. Pure being.”
As it speaks, I feel how my brain is empty. Nothing. Relaxed. As if the sea had washed out the thoughts. SURRENDER. My body, my soul and my being surrender to the water. In this lightness I feel being stone.
I give my outer layers to the sea, let sand and waves grind me down. Become softer and softer. Crude becomes refined. Rough becomes smooth. I am given and I give. I offer to the water: sand for the beach.”
~ Svatma (you very self)
These are so beautiful, the story of the mystic and the story of the stone, both Glenda and Phil thank you in heart’s delight, for seeing into the spirit of the post. I was hesitant to post this, the points are mostly my own etching as I attempted to work through the chapter, and often my thoughts don’t make much sense to an attuned outward ear. Panikkar is both dense and startling, thoroughly worth the journey, through, and you have both sustained the sense and the pointing, in your responses.
Glenda – I have not read much Panikkar beyond this reading and a smattering of journal articles, I am the ‘Bhaskar’ voice moreso than John O’Neill who is our ‘Panikkar’ voice, and whom I will ask to come along and post a recommendation, for where he feels a good starting point might be had.
In devotion, and in love,
Trish
Hi Glenda,
I recommend “The Experience of God, Icons of the Mystery” as a good recent (20006) introduction to his thought. It’s a beautiful little book, quite meditative, which covers most of his key themes. I hope you enjoy it.