Raimundo Panikkar's Cosmotheandrism

It is not our intention in this study to describe the thinking and development of individual theologians. Nevertheless, we cannot avoid discussing Asian (and African in Part VIII) theology without constant reference to individual thinkers. However much we want to trace its main lines and tendencies, rather than individual variations on these, theology – happily enough – remains something done by people of flesh and blood who arrive at their theological views through their entirely unique development. Acquaintance with this development often provides the best access to understanding the existential import of their ideas. This approach runs parallel to the starting point articulated in Part I, i.e. that worldwide recognition does not arise through abstraction from concrete situations but, rather, through the recognition of the authenticity of these situations.

In this section we will look at the development of two of the most influential Indian theologians. We will begin with the both respected and maligned Raimundo Panikkar. We could call the Roman Catholic Indian theologian Panikkar an embodiment of the “inreligionization” for which Pieris argues. His father was an Indian Hindu and his mother a Spanish Roman Catholic. He himself could speak of a “double belonging,” or even of “multiple belonging” because, as an Asian Christian, he saw himself not only as a Hindu but also as a Buddhist. “I left as a Christian, I found myself a Hindu, and I ‘returned’ as a Buddhist, without ever having ceased to be a Christian.”