Sárospataki Füzetek 16. (2012)
2012 / 1. szám - TANULMÁNYOK - Brinkman, Martien E.: Is There a Reciprocal Relation Between Anthropology and Christology?
Brinkman, Martién e. How these categories are transformed, is here, however, the main problem. That is easier to show in a Christology ‘from above’. Hence, I focus upon the latter. In contrast to the former approach we are in theology also used to speak about a Christology ‘from above’. Such a Christology begins with Jesus’ divine descent from heaven, literally ‘from above’ and emphasizes that he connects heaven and earth. In this approach especially his divine character is underscored. In this contribution, however, I shall show that even a Christology ‘from above’ like that of Pa- nikkar presumes already existing anthropological categories. Hence, I call it an anthropological approach. In Panikkar’s Christology the Christ beyond us (extra nos) is considered to be the Christ in us (in nobis) as well. This idea is based upon the patristic (and among Asian theologians popular) idea that the macro-cosmos, the world beyond us, mirrors itself in the micro-cosmos, in the mind, of every individual human person. Cosmology, the world order, and anthropology, our human constitution, are here closely connected. According to Panikkar, Christ is the symbol of the mediation between the relative (the human) and the absolute (the divine), a di-unity that he considers characteristic of each religion. He represents the position that Christ is not only the Jesus of Christianity but above all the symbol of theandric (often also called cosmotheandrii) human existence.6 As such, this Christ transcends Christianity and the adherents of other religions do not need to refer to him necessarily by a name derived from Christianity. That is not necessary because not only can be said that brahman, the soul of the world, is the ‘unknown Christ’ of Hinduism, but also that Christ is the ‘unknown brahmarí of Christianity. In both cases, at issue is a reality whose full weight the individual religions can articulate only gropingly.7 So, Pannikkar interprets Christ as a model for the connectedness of the relative and absolute in all religions. In this way he can speak of the ‘universal Christ’ and of the ‘christic principle’ that lies at the foundation of the whole of reality. Each living creature is called in him and by him into existence and exists in and participates in the Son; each living creature is thus essentially a Christophany,8 He states that Jesus is an epiphany (appearance) of Christ but underscores that this statement is only partially true. This Christ of the Christophany is not exhausted in Jesus. Panikkar does not deny the historicity of Jesus’ life and the reality of the divine incarnation in him, but he puts it in a larger context. The historicity of Jesus’ life and belief in God’s incarnation in him is necessary to come to faith in Christ. But the appearance (epiphany) of Christ is not limited to Jesus. For him, Jesus’ uniqueness is not at issue because he characterizes the concept of uniqueness as a qualitative concept. Thus, there can be other epiphanies of Christ — such as, for example, in Hindu avataras or Buddhist bodhisattvas — but no single one surpasses the epiph6 See for the patristic (a.o. Pseudo-Dionysius, 5th cent., and Maximus the Confessor, 6*-7* cent.) background of the reference to a micro- and macro-cosmos and to the adjective ‘theandric’, e.g. L. Thunberg, Man and the Cosmos: The Vision of St Maximus The Confessor (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985). ‘Theandric’ is a contraction of‘theos’(God) and ‘aner’(man). 7 R. Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism: Towards an Ecumenical Christophany (Maryknoll: Orbis Book, 1981), 92. 8 R. Panikkar, Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1973), 54 and 68. 18 SÁROSPATAKI FÜZETEK 2012/1
