COMPARATIVE HISTORY OF RELIGION

Abstract

This book is a collection of Panikkar's papers, revised by him under the headings of myth, faith, and hermeneutics. Two-thirds of the papers included were originally read at the annual colloquium (organized by Enrico Castelli) at the University of Rome. Panikkar sees this volume as introductory to books he has planned on Intrareligious Dialogue and Symbolic Character of Words (15). The purpose of these papers, says Panikkar, is to contribute, from several angles, to overcoming the split between mythos and logos, action and contemplation, tradition and modernity (3). Myth (part 1) is understood by Panikkar as the context or horizon within which one lives. Myths provide the presuppositions from which systems of thought (logos) arise. Thus myths stem from a deeper, and so more universal, human stratum than do the philosophies (98). Panikkar's examination of myth uses two approaches. To begin with, he relates myth to fundamental human problems such as tolerance and ideology (chap. 2) and morality (chap. 3). The discussion offered is stimulating and the examination of myth and morality has much to say about the failure of today's so-called value-free education. Panikkar concludes part 1 by offering two case studies, both from the Indian tradition: Myth of Prajdpati: the Originating Fault or Creative Immolation (chap. 4), and Sunahoepa: A Myth of the Human Condition (chap. 5). In both cases, Panikkar demonstrates how to interpret such texts by avoiding reductionism and yet allowing various scholarly techniques to draw out the richness of the myths for modern man, be he Eastern or Western. Part 2 focuses on Faith. Panikkar argues that faith is basic to human experience. By faith man is distinguished from other beings (190). cannot have faith the way we have money, property or friends. We live by faith and from faith; it is always underneath or above but, like any horizon of reality, always just beyond our grasp (218). Faith is the bridge pointing man to and connecting him with his destiny-whether that destiny be conceived of as God, the Absolute, nirvana, or humanity (208). Thus faith is common and constitutive in the experience of Western religions, Hindu, Buddhist, humanist and atheist. Without faith there is no basis for right action or aesthetic experience (201). Panikkar's study of faith is reminiscent of Tillich's classic Dynamics of Faith, although Tillich is not cited. As Tillich had earlier, Panikkar defines faith as an existential openness in which doubt and incompleteness are always present-a very Protestant view of faith. Panikkar, again following Tillich, advocates a method of correlation for uniting the questions of faith with the answers of revelation (211). Panikkar's claim that his conception of faith is acceptable to Eastern religions is only partly correct. The notion of faith as a bridge or means to the goal is consistent with Eastern thought. But Panikkar's typically Western stress on the fact that the end will never be fully achieved, that faith remains open and unfinished (207-13) does not coincide with the Eastern view that by faith, human nature can be purified