Rediscovering Our Relationship with Ecology:
AN INSIGHT from panikkar’s cosmotheandric principle
K. Laltlankima
(To
Quote: K. Laltlankima, “Rediscovering Our Relationship with
Ecology: An Insight from Panikkar’s Cosmotheandric Principle,” Master’s
College Theological Journal 1, no.1 (March 2011): 36-43.)
Page 36
Introduction
Ecology has become a very popular
subject of study in theological circle. This popularity is due to the
realization that all kinds of life depend on each other.[1]
The present theme is made relevant for discussion by the realization of the
very closeness of human life to the world of nature.[2]
Traditionally there is a belief that human beings are the dominant creatures.
But this understanding has been blown apart by the very realization of human’s
responsibility towards other creations in the wake of the realization of the
need to protect and safeguard our ecology because of the wanton destruction of
the same for human greed resulting in devastating climate change that adversely
affects the normal condition of life. Never have I imagined that I will be
writing on this theme as I see myself insignificant because of my limited
knowledge on the subject. But after seeing different forms of ecological
destruction I feel obliged to make contribution to create awareness on the
subject through a responsible rediscovery of our relationship with other
creations from a theological perspective.
1.
Cosmotheandric Principle for Rediscovering our Relationship
Panikkar’s
Cosmotheandric principle i.e. the interwoven relationship of God-World-Human
beings is very suitable for rediscovering our relationship with ecology. This principle is significant as it is based
on the understanding that “the divine, human and the earthly— however we may
prefer to call them— are the three irreducible dimensions which constitute the
real.”[3] Moreover,
this principle is appropriate to address today’s ecological issues as it deals
with the oneness and interdependence of God-World-Human beings. The
relationship of God-World-Human beings is clearly spelled out by Panikkar when
he said, “creation, humanity and God are
one. Together, all three constitute being: all are constitutive elements of the
others- and one cannot exist without the others.” [4]
Dominic Veliath supplemented that “cosmotheandrism is a unity, which is an
expression of the radical relativity of all reality, embraces all three
dimensions of the real— God, man [sic],
world, as intrinsically constitutive dimensions of all reality.”[5]
Cosmotheandrism may therefore be understood as signifying that we are an
integral part of a higher and more real unity.
Page 37
I briefly highlighted
the Cosmotheandric principle of Panikkar with the anticipation of inculcating
new consciousness and new awareness with regard to human’s relationship with
nature against the popular understanding of human’s responsibilities towards
nature as gardeners, caretakers, mothers and fathers, stewards, trustees,
lovers, priests, co-creators and friends.[6]
The main concern here is to draw our attention towards the ‘oneness’ and
‘interdependence’ of God-World-Human beings in the midst of ecological crises.
This is important to us as human beings, because our gift of intellect tends to
have dominion and control over nature failing to recognize the fact that
God-World-Human being are one; that one cannot exist without the other; that
they are all part of the others. It is my belief that once we accept and
acknowledge the oneness and interdependence of God-World-Human being in the
pattern of Cosmotheandric principle the problem of annihilation and devastation
of nature because of one’s greed and gluttony will certainly be at a slower
pace than the present.
2. Rediscovering
our Oneness with Ecology
The cosmotheandric
principle implies oneness of God-World-Human beings. Panikkar wanted to recover
this sense of unity with the real.[7] This
concern is crucially important in today’s context of ecological crises as human
beings became the maximum contributors because of our sense of dominion over
nature. It also spells out the need to see nature as a part of our whole being,
that which is an integral part of our being; that which cannot be separated
from us. But as of now, it is more like we estrange nature from us. We see them
as alien to our being. Therefore, we cannot develop a sense of unity with
nature. We human beings consider ourselves as constituting the only real apart
from God thereby ignoring other realities like nature that surrounds us. This
hinders us from affirming our oneness. This is the basic cause of our
exploitation of nature. It is at this point that Panikkar reminds us of the
importance to see nature also as constituting the real. Equally important is to
understand our relationship with the world of nature as not different from our
relationship with ourself. At the same time, one may argue one’s difference
with the world of nature in certain respects but it is important to note, as
Panikkar argues, “The world and I are not two separate realities because we
share each other’s life, existence, being, history and destiny in a unique
way.”[8]
Along the line of Panikkar, Stephen R. L. Clark also made a statement of the
danger of not acknowledging our oneness. He said, “If we develop the
understanding that the welfare of myself is separate from the welfare of any
other
Page 38
thing, it may require
of me to exploit or ignore the other.”[9]
This is equal to saying that unjust relationship is one of the causes of the
ecological crisis. This seems to be exactly what is happening with us today. Most
presumably, we human beings are thinking only of the welfare of our survival
ignoring the welfare of the world of nature and our unity with nature. The
consequence(s) of ignoring this unity leads to profound ecological crisis as
can be seen in the process of deforestation in India for industrial and other
profit oriented establishments. This is disastrous as it threatens our survival
because of its enormous contributions to the causes of ecological imbalance
which in turn is putting our own life and the planet at risk.
Emphasizing the
oneness of God-World-Human beings, Panikkar states, “God is not only the God of
Man [sic], but also the God of the
world. A God without cosmological and therefore no cosmogenic function would
not be a God at all, but a mere phantom.”[10]
Here, Panikkar is emphasizing the universality of God. It is true, in the light
of Panikkar’s statement, to say that we cannot limit God to human being alone;
God is also the God of nature for they are also part of the same creation. To
those who worship the same God should be present in the spirit of unity or a
feeling of oneness. The questions of dominion and superiority have no place in
this unity. This brings out the need to rediscover our oneness by reaffirming
that “we are unique symbols of the complete reality. We are a reflection, an
image of reality.”[11]
3. Rediscovering
our Interdependence with Ecology
The cosmotheandric
principle implies interdependence. Sallie McFague said, “…we are, in the most
profound ways, “not our own”: we belong, from the cell of our bodies to the
finest creations of our mind, to the intricate, constantly changing cosmos.”[12]
Panikkar expressed the same concern when he said that God-World-Human being
cannot be taken in isolation for this would annihilate them.[13]
But looking at our attitude towards nature in the present situation of India,
or the world for that matter, human being seems to be unaware or at least
unconcerned of this interdependence. Even a look at the wider world suggests
human’s involvement in ecological crises.[14]
Here we see human being’s contribution to ecological crises when we ignore our
interdependence with our natural surroundings. It is true to say that
ecological crises are urging us to affirm our interdependence with nature and
become more conscious of ecological values.[15]
Page 39
There is a tendency
to consider human beings as the crown of creations. This is a very harmful
misconception as it tends to ignore the importance of nature for our survival.
It is true that we are distinct; equally true is that we are inseparable.[16] Yes,
we are inseparable because our life depends on each other. Many of us limit the
gift of forest to trees alone. This is a big misconception because the most
precious gift of forest is not trees but organic matter, fresh air and clean
water without which our life is at stake. At this point it is important to note
that being unconscious of our interdependence negates our self-understanding
because “our relation with the Earth is part of our self-understanding.”[17] If
we fail to acknowledge nature as part of us, then we are not aware of what it
takes for us to survive. Our survival is at threat when nature is at threat. This
may be explained by using “irresponsible forest burning” as an illustration. Firstly, when we burn forest, fire consumes
oxygen and destroys trees and plants that produce oxygen.[18]
Oxygen is basic for our survival. It is said that human beings cannot survive
without oxygen for more than six minutes.[19]
One environmental
activist, C. Rokhuma, sees the burning of forest as the destruction of ‘oxygen
factory.’[20]
This is a good observation as a single mature tree can release enough oxygen to
support two human beings.[21]
This is a clear proof to indicate the necessity to conserve forest for our
survival. Secondly, forest fire pollutes air, making bronchitis, asthma, and
pneumonia rampant. It also contributes to the worsening condition of the
climate as heat wave increases due to the destruction of forest by fire which
contributes to conditioning the climate of the earth.[22]
Thirdly, forest fire destroys trees of the forest which protect us from cyclones
and tornadoes by reducing the speed of the wind.[23] Thus
it is clear that the safety of our life depends on our natural surroundings
which freely feed us with oxygen that is basic to our survival and also that
they act as a shield of protection from natural disaster like cyclones,
landslides etc.
Speaking of our
interdependence, Panikkar said, “One does not live just to eat, but when we eat
properly we live and let live, and life circulates.”[24] KC
Abraham also mentioned that we should develop a new sense of interdependence
and affirm that we belong to the earth, and that we share a common destiny with
the earth.[25] For
Sallie McFague, “The earth is not only our home but …also the giver and
sustainer of our lives in basic and concrete ways.”[26] It
is with this understanding that we observe World Forestry Day. On the occasion
of Green Mizoram Day, observed on the 16th of June, 2009 the Chief
Minister Mr. Lal Thanhawla said, “It is our responsibility to make and conserve
forest to avoid being cursed on our
Page 40
graveyard by our
children and grandchildren.”[27]
Such concern for ecology will certainly help us to prevent the reduction of all
that is not human to objects for human use. This understanding will also help
us to do away with the question of annihilation and devastation by
irresponsibly causing destruction to the ecology. Since we are dependent on one
another for our survival it is unwise to put the life of many and the universe
at threat for one’s sole survival. “We are part of each other, and the breaking
down of one ecosystem affects all the others.”[28]
Conclusion
The above discussion
takes us away from the understanding of nature as mere objects and of an
instrument for human beings. Even though this principle implies oneness and
interdependence of God-World-Human beings, it is not to be equated with the
doctrine of Trinity for they are not of the same substance (homoousious) but it should be
acknowledged that, in spite of their difference, they co-exist, they
inter-relate and cannot be taken in isolation.[29]
Each of them is what the other is not, and not lesser than others for they are
intrinsically linked together. It is with this understanding that we speak of
the cosmos not in isolation of God and human beings but in relation to the two.
We speak of our oneness because of the need prompted by the present ecological
crises to see and understand nature as part of our whole being.
We speak of
interdependence because of the consciousness “what happens in one place in the
universe has an effect (even if minor) on the rest of the universe.”[30]
This perspective goes along the lines of most recent theological reflection on
ecology and creation that stresses the holistic, interdependent and relational
nature of all reality.[31] It
is also anticipated that it will help us to understand that all things are
interdependent and organically related, and at the same time acknowledges that
“diversity is the life of the whole and that which actually enables unity.”[32]
This perspective is
purposefully chosen with the belief that its relevance and significance will be
appreciated in a land of many religions like India in which different religions
have their respective relationship with nature in one way or another. Moreover,
it is my belief that once we are aware of the oneness and interdependence of
God-World-Human beings, the rate of irresponsible profit oriented destruction
of ecology will dwindle because such understanding is very central to our
faith.
Page 41
Bibliography
Abraham, K. C. “A Theological Response to
Ecological Crisis.” In Ecotheology:
Voices from South and North. Edited by David G. Hallman. Geneva: WCC
Publications, 1994.
Abraham, K. C. Eco-Justice: A New Agenda for Church’s Mission. Bombay, BUILD, n. d.
Barnette, Henlee H. The Church and the Ecological Crisis. Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972.
Clark, Stephen R. L. How to Think About the Earth: Philosophical and Theological Models for
Ecology. New York: Mowbray, 1993.
Environmental Campaign Paper of the Evangelical
Fellowship of India Commission on Relief (EFICOR).
Leaflet issued by the Divisional Forest Officer,
Forest Extension Division, Aizawl, Mizoram.
Manohar, Christina. “Towards a Mission Theology
of Environment.” In Ecological Challenge
and Christian Mission. Edited by Krickwin C. Marak and Atul Y. Aghamkar.
Delhi: CMS/ISPCK, 1998.
Minz, Nirmal. “Tribal Perspectives on Ecology.”
In The Tribal Worldview and Ecology. Edited
by A. Wati Longchar and Yangkahao Vashum. Jorhat, Assam: The Tribal Study
Centre, 1998.
Panikkar, Raimon. The Cosmotheandric Experience: Emerging Religious Consciousness. Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1993.
Pohsngap, L. “Ecology and Tribal Culture.” In Ecological Challenge and Christian Mission.
Edited by Krickwin C. Marak and Atul Y. Aghamkar. Delhi: CMS/ISPCK, 1998.
Pui-lan, Kwok. “Ecology and the Recycling of
Christianity.” In Ecotheology: Voices
from South and North. Edited by David G. Hallman. Geneva: WCC Publications,
1994.
Rokhuma, C. “Ram Kang Hian Enge A Khawih Pawi.” Forest Khawvel, Vol. III, Issue No. 17,
January-March 2009.
Sowunmi, Adebisi. “How and Why Creation
Disintegrated.” Reintegrating God’s
Creation. Geneva: WCC, 1987.
Vanglaini, Vol. XXIV, No. 137, Nilaini June 17,
2009.
Veliath, Dominic. Theological Approaches and Understanding of Religions- Jean Danielou
and Raimunda Panikkar:
Page 42
A Study in Contrast. Bangalore: Kristu Jyoti College, 1988.
Page 42
A Study in Contrast. Bangalore: Kristu Jyoti College, 1988.
Granberg-Michaelson, Wesley. “Creation in
Ecumenical Theology.” In Ecotheology:
Voices from South and North. Edited by David G. Hallman. Geneva: WCC
Publications, 1994.
McFague, Sallie. Models of God. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989.
Endnotes
[1] L. Pohsngap,
“Ecology and Tribal Culture,” Ecological
Challenge and Christian Mission, edited by Krickwin C. Marak and Atul Y.
Aghamkar (Delhi: CMS/ISPCK, 1998), 149.
[2] Nirmal Minz,
“Tribal Perspectives on Ecology,” The
Tribal Worldview and Ecology, edited by A. Wati Longchar and Yangkahao
Vashum (Jorhat, Assam: The tribal Study Centre, 1998), 1.
[3] Raimon
Panikkar, The Cosmotheandric Experience:
Emerging Religious Consciousness (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers
Pvt. Ltd., 1993), 60.
[4] Quoted by K. C.
Abraham, Eco-Justice: A New Agenda for
Church’s Mission (Bombay: BUILD, n. d.), 10.
[5] Dominic
Veliath, Theological Approache and
Understanding of Religions- Jean Danielou and Raimunda Panikkar: A Study in
Contrast (Bangalore: Kristu Jyoti College, 1988), 147.
[6] Sallie
McFague, Models of God (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1989), 13.
[7] Raimon
Panikkar, The Cosmotheandric Experience,
53.
[8] Raimon
Panikkar, The Cosmotheandric Experience,
72.
[9] Stephen R. L.
Clark, How to Think About the Earth:
Philosophical and Theological Models for Ecology (new York: Mowbray, 1993),
74.
[10] Raimon
Panikkar, The Cosmotheandric Experience,
74.
[11] Raimon
Panikkar, The Cosmotheandric Experience,
73.
[12] Sallie
McFague, Models of God, 7-8.
[13] Raimon
Panikkar, The Cosmotheandric Experience,
77.
[14] Human impact
on the ecology became notable from about 10,000 years ago with the beginning of
farming, animal domestication and living in rather permanent, larger-sized
settlement. For these purposes forests or other types of local natural
vegetation were destroyed to create space for farmland. This significant impact
on the environment has taken on alarming and critical dimensions since the
industrial revolution in Europe with the
burning of fossil fuel, and later on with mechanized large-scale farming. In
more recent years the situation has become catastrophic due to the dumping of
chemical wastes, pollution of air and water, and nuclear fall-outs. Adebisi Sowunmi,
“How and Why Creation Disintegrated,” Reintegrating
God’s Creation (Geneva: WCC, 1987), 12.
Page 43
Page 43
[15] K. C. Abraham,
Eco-Justice: A New Agenda for Church’s
Mission, 18.
[16] By way of
illustration, Panikkar explains: “My head is distinct from me, yet cannot be
separated from me. It would cease to be what it is, and so would I. The head is
essentially the head of the body….. We do not treat our bodies as something
other, although we discover their otherness…” Raimon Panikkar, The Cosmotheandric Experience, 150-151.
[17] Raimon
Panikkar, The Cosmotheandric Experience,
151.
[18] Leaflet issued
by the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Extension Division, Aizawl, Mizoram.
[19] Henlee H. Barnette,
The Church and the Ecological Crisis
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972), 17.
[20] C. Rokhuma,
“Ram Kang Hian Enge A Khawih Pawi,” Forest
Khawvel, vol. III, Issue No. 17, January-March 2009, 9.
[21] Environmental
Campaign Paper of the Evangelical Fellowship of India
[22] Leaflet issued
by the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Extension Division, Aizawl, Mizoram.
[23] Leaflet issued
by the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Extension Division, Aizawl, Mizoram.
[24] Raimon
Panikkar, The Cosmotheandric Experience,
151.
[25] K. C. Abraham,
“A Theological Response to Ecological Crisis,” Ecotheology: Voices from South and North, edited by David G.
Hallman, (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1994), 69.
[26] Sallie
McFague, Models of God, 9.
[27] Vanglaini,
Vol. XXIV, No. 137, Nilaini June 17, 2009.
[28] Kwok Pui-lan,
“Ecology and the Recycling of Christianity,” Ecotheology: Voices from South and North, edited by David G.
Hallman, (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1994), 111.
[29] Christina Manohar,
“Towards a Mission Theology of Environment,” Ecological Challenge and Christian Mission,
edited by Krickwin C. Marak and Atul Y. Aghamkar (Delhi: CMS/ISPCK, 1998), 202.
[30] As quoted in
Christina Manohar, “Towards a Mission Theology of Environment,” 201.
[31] Wesley
Granberg-Michaelson, “Creation in Ecumenical Theology,” Ecotheology: Voices from South and North, edited by David G.
Hallman (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1994), 104.
[32] Wesley
Granberg-Michaelson, “Creation in Ecumenical Theology,” 10
