1 of 2
1
The Existential Phenomenology of Truth
Posted: 28 April 2007 07:07 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  390
Joined  2006-10-12

For anyone interested, this link is to the full text of an out of print 1956 essay, an excerpt of which I posted in another thread a few weeks back:

The Existential Phenomenology of Truth

Information about the author here:

http://www.answers.com/topic/raimon-panikkar

 Signature 

“Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it”—Andre Gide

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2007 09:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

So, Maha, thanks for this - it’s my assignment of the afternoon - alternating with clipping English Ivy.
Hopefully, you’ll check back to help with questions….I don’t usually read philosophy, but this looks so much like the ‘teachings’ I’m involved in, I may be able to get a glimpse of what he’s saying, and straighten out some of my confused thinking.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2007 10:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  390
Joined  2006-10-12

[quote author=“Anonymous”]So, Maha, thanks for this - it’s my assignment of the afternoon - alternating with clipping English Ivy.
Hopefully, you’ll check back to help with questions….I don’t usually read philosophy, but this looks so much like the ‘teachings’ I’m involved in, I may be able to get a glimpse of what he’s saying, and straighten out some of my confused thinking.

I first read this piece in 1972 as an undergraduate student of Prof. Panikkar at UC Santa Barbara.  I’ve read it, as well as other of his works, many, many times over the past 35 years, and I can’t say yet that I “get” it. 

It can be desribed as “mystical” philosophy:  it points you in the direction of understanding exactly why “thinking,” ultimately, is not adequate to the task when it comes to Truth with a capital T.

 Signature 

“Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it”—Andre Gide

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2007 10:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  734
Joined  2007-03-10

Thanks for sharing this.  I plan or reading this essay this afternoon.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2007 12:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Administrator
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  480
Joined  2006-12-16

OK! Now this is ‘religion’ as it is supposed to be! (I didn’t get logged in earlier, but that first comment was mine.)
Yes, I could very much see spending a lifetime in contemplation of this text - your good fortune to have met the man in your youth.
This statement was like a revelation: ‘...wisdom…is not so much a knowing as a consciousness of being known.’
That’s exactly what the problem was for me in Buddhism, and more recent teachings didn’t quite get at it either. This is a wonderful insight which I think was a result of the Hindu/Christian cross-fertilization. Christians are hoping to feel ‘loved’ and then either have to give up, blame themselves or go through all sorts of self-deception in order to deal with the fact that GOD DOES NOT LOVE, because love is always opposed to hate. What God does is create by ‘knowing’. And that we can sense, especially as it’s pointed out so clearly.
Now, for all I know, Panikkar talks about ‘God’s love’ somewhere, and I would have to take that in context. 
Anyway, the way I experience it is as a feeling of being held - when there is a letting go into a ‘void of unknowing’ there is also a feeling of being held. I found it rather confusing (to say the least!) but this expression ‘consciousness of being known’ is exactly what that is, not of being cared for but just that - being known.
There are big chunks of the essay that left me rather in knots, the logical part, I guess, about Sn’s being this or that…I’ll have to study that because it’s something I could surely learn from.
But these simple statements of experience, like ‘truth is not something we possess, but something that possesses us’ are so clear and wonderful and resonant, I have not the slightest concern about where that assurance comes from, because I know with all my heart/mind - this is not delusion.
Need to check Amazon to see if he can help me more with Advaita….

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2007 02:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  734
Joined  2007-03-10

Pat:

I am glad you found this.  I was looking for this thread to link it back to your thread “Who’s Self-Conscious?” 

Everyone else:

I am absolutely struggling to digest this essay.  It has taken me hours to make it through the first couple of pages.  So far, my main problem seems to be that the author keeps referring to God as the God of the Bible.  I’m having difficulty discerning whether this is done for symbollic reasons, or whether this is a plug for a specific God interpretation (preference of religion).  Can anyone help?  I have to get over this mental hurdle or else I might miss something.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2007 02:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  390
Joined  2006-10-12
[quote author=“Pat_Adducci”]Need to check Amazon to see if he can help me more with Advaita….

Advaita is central to his work.

Search under both the first names “Raimon” and “Raimundo.”

You will find the following out of print, as well, but uploaded here:

The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man

Don’t let the word “Trinity” deter you:  it is not in any way restricted to or limited by “mainline” Christian dogma.

 Signature 

“Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it”—Andre Gide

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2007 08:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Administrator
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  480
Joined  2006-12-16

MD - Yes, I was a bit defensive in my reading, too, not wanting him to make assumptions based on Christian tradition. And he does leap into assumptions - I don’t think anyone who loves a non-theistic view is going to get anywhere with this guy. So maybe that includes you?
I don’t know how much I actually understand what he wants to convey - however, his description of how concept works, and the dangers, are very helpful.
Thinking about spirituality is a dangerous game because it’s so easy to get carried away with words.
I studied the text some more this morning, and I realized how I did just that - got carried away with words - in my response yesterday.  I said God creates by ‘knowing’ and that was way out of line - influenced by certain parts of the essay, words influencing words, nothing more.
I can say ‘God creates’ and that is pretty much my whole understanding of God, so I should stop right there. (I’m quite in thrall to ‘The God Theory’ and the idea that God creates by dividing, but I have to keep that on the sidelines, as an idea.) 
Panikkar does a really beautiful job of showing that since we are IN existence, our ability to make statements about it will be limited. He seems to believe that there will be some sort of knowing in a position outside existence, and he makes me nervous with that sort of thinking. Maybe because it touches on my confusion about ‘awakening’ and other ideas from Eastern religion. What is nirvana, anyway? I thought it didn’t have to be separate from existence? Anyway, why should I believe that?
I have a question about ‘dialectical logic’ - is that where you make statements and then derive another statement from that and work your way forward? Is he saying that ignores ‘the thing in itself’?
I’m going to read the ‘trinity’ article and hope that it touches on my idea of ‘spirit’ and the communicative principle…I definitely could use some help thinking about that!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2007 09:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  390
Joined  2006-10-12
[quote author=“MDBeach”] It has taken me hours to make it through the first couple of pages.  So far, my main problem seems to be that the author keeps referring to God as the God of the Bible.  I’m having difficulty discerning whether this is done for symbollic reasons, or whether this is a plug for a specific God interpretation (preference of religion).  Can anyone help?  I have to get over this mental hurdle or else I might miss something.

Panikkar’s use of the word “God” is for lack of any better noun.  It most certainly is NOT the God of the Bible, which would be a transcendent and remote creator, inaccessible to us little beings on earth.  Try substituting the word “Absolute” if theistic connotations turn you off.

Now, that is not to say Panikkar is not a theist.  It would be more accurate to say he neither is, nor is not, a theist, because he genuinely has experienced and experiences Buddhism - but not to the exclusion of his Christian (Spanish mother) and Hindu (Indian father) heritages, which he equally has experienced and experiences.  He is all about pluralism and cross-cultural dialogue.

He is also a true and legitimate modern mystic.  Given the interelatedness of all cultures, countries and people in the “flat world” of the 20th and 21st centuries, such mysticim must be textually inclusive, and not exclusive, in order to be truly pluralistic.  Therefore, try not to impose stereotypical notions of “God” into these texts.

Speaking of stereotypes, his thought and writings clearly differ from generally accepted stereotypes of “mysticism,” by being intellectually complex and profound, as opposed to light and fluffy “woo woo” so disdained by science/realism-heads.

Which should appeal to egg-heads like those of us who frequent this forum 8)

 Signature 

“Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it”—Andre Gide

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2007 02:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

[quote author=“mahahaha”]He is also a true and legitimate modern mystic.  Given the interelatedness of all cultures, countries and people in the “flat world” of the 20th and 21st centuries, such mysticim must be textually inclusive, and not exclusive, in order to be truly pluralistic.  Therefore, try not to impose stereotypical notions of “God” into these texts.

Speaking of stereotypes, his thought and writings clearly differ from generally accepted stereotypes of “mysticism,” by being intellectually complex and profound, as opposed to light and fluffy “woo woo” so disdained by science/realism-heads.

Which should appeal to egg-heads like those of us who frequent this forum 8)

The fact that a text is pluralistic, cross-cultural, textually-inclusive, as well as intellectually complex and profound doesn’t change the fact that it is a text, a whole text, and nothing but a text, so help you God.

[quote author=“our mutual friend”]il n’y a pas de hors-texte

It is totally false to suggest that deconstruction is a suspension of reference.  Deconstruction is always deeply concerned with the ‘other’ of language.  I never cease to be surprised by critics who see my work as a declaration that there is nothing beyond language, that we are imprisoned in language; it is, in fact, saying the exact opposite.  The critique of logocentrism is above all else the search for the ‘other’ and the ‘other of language…’  Certainly, deconstruction tries to show that the question of reference is much more complex and problematic than traditional theories supposed.  It even asks whether our term ‘reference’ is entirely adequate for designating the ‘other.’  The other, which is beyond language and which summons language, is perhaps not a ‘referent’ in the normal sense which linguists have attached to this term.  But to distance oneself thus from the habitual structure, to challenge or complicate our common assumptions about it, does not amount to saying that there is nothing beyond language.  (Cited in The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida, Pgs. 16-17)

[quote author=“someone else”]To say there is no ‘hors-texte’ is thus also to refuse not to count unnumbered pages. The implications of this for a discussion of “the dangerous supplement” will be obvious.

[ Edited: 30 April 2007 02:53 AM by ]
 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2007 02:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  390
Joined  2006-10-12

[quote author=“Salt Creek”]The fact that a text is pluralistic, cross-cultural, textually-inclusive, as well as intellectually complex and profound doesn’t change the fact that it is a text, a whole text, and nothing but a text, so help you God.

Indeed.  You are so succinct when stating the obvious.  rolleyes

So, when will we hear your comprehensive and erudite critique of the text :?:

I suspect that rather than an erudite critique, we will hear yet more pseudo-clever, smug, intellectually snobbish and sarcastic evasions, which reveal more about your own analytical deficiencies than those whom you purport to denounce.

Salt Creek:  a man who exalts form over substance. 

Isn’t that a tad ironic for a physicist?

 Signature 

“Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it”—Andre Gide

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2007 02:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

[quote author=“mahahaha”][So, when will we hear your comprehensive and erudite critique of the text :?:

As in, it is entirely a crock of sh1t? My succinctness knows no bounds. :D

My comprehensiveness knows no comprehension.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2007 03:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  390
Joined  2006-10-12

[quote author=“Salt Creek”][quote author=“mahahaha”][So, when will we hear your comprehensive and erudite critique of the text :?:

As in, it is entirely a crock of sh1t? My succinctness knows no bounds. :D

My comprehensiveness knows no comprehension.

I didn’t expect anything more enlightening than this from you; you bit hook, line and sinker.

If sarcasm were erudition, you’d be Stephen Hawking.  Unfortunately, any lame jack ass can be sarcastic; only intelligent, well educated and disciplined scholars can be erudite.

Anyone else out in cyberland besides me suspect that Salt Creek is a fraud :?:

 Signature 

“Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it”—Andre Gide

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2007 03:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

[quote author=“mahahaha”]If sarcasm were erudition, you’d be Stephen Hawking.  Unfortunately, any lame jack ass can be sarcastic; only intelligent, well educated and disciplined scholars can be erudite.

The thing about you, Dougie, is that you react like any other religious nut, with righteous indignation, when somebody makes fun of your “sacred” texts, and you seem to be entirely oblivious to that.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2007 03:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  390
Joined  2006-10-12

[quote author=“Salt Creek”][quote author=“mahahaha”]If sarcasm were erudition, you’d be Stephen Hawking.  Unfortunately, any lame jack ass can be sarcastic; only intelligent, well educated and disciplined scholars can be erudite.

The thing about you, Dougie, is that you react like any other religious nut, with righteous indignation, when somebody makes fun of your “sacred” texts, and you seem to be entirely oblivious to that.

Well, if there is truth to that, then tail between my legs:  “Mea Culpa.”

Standing up in front of the group:  “My name is Doug.  I’m a religious nut / addict.”

Back atcha:  that fact remains that all you can well do is sling shit.

Where’s the beef?

 Signature 

“Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it”—Andre Gide

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 May 2007 06:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Hey mahahaha—
    I don’t think Salt Creek is a fraud.  I think he is a curmudgeon.  I think he actually put the “cur” in curmudgeon.  (maybe the ‘mudge,’ too)  But I do think your criticisms are valid.  I am a little disappointed not to see a response from him.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
‹‹ What is Eureka?      Is Sam a dualist? ››
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed