The Xavier Zubiri Review, Vol. 13, 2013-2015, pp. 107-132

The Transcendental Of Xavier Zubiri In Nature, History, And Man And God

C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto, Th.M. Asunción, Paraguay

Abstract

Xavier Zubiri (1898-1983) was perhaps the most original and systematically rigorous think- er in contemporary Spanish philosophy; but he may also be the least known, due to cir- cumstances of his life that prevented him from occupying the center stage in ’s intel- lectual life. This paper intends to show that Xavier Zubiri’s theology is in fact a form of panentheism, a view of God where the world is in God via an ontological link, and yet God and the world are not identical. After a summary review of literature relevant for under- standing the question and some basic notions on panentheism, we analyze Zubirian theol- ogy as shown in two of Zubiri’s most important works: Nature, History, God and Man and God. The conclusion of this study is that Zubiri’s theology may be in fact a form of tran- scendental panentheism.

Resumen Xavier Zubiri (1898–1983) fue quizás el pensador más original y más sistemáticamente ri- guroso de la filosofía española contemporánea; pero también es el menos conocido, debido a circunstancias de su vida que le impidieron ocupar un lugar central en la vida intelectual de España. Este trabajo busca mostrar que la teología de Xavier Zubiri es de hecho una forma de panenteísmo, una visión de Dios en donde el mundo está en Dios mediante un vínculo ontológico, y aun así Dios y el mundo no son idénticos. Después de una breve rese- ña de la literatura pertinente para comprender la cuestión y algunas nociones básicas de panenteísmo, se hace un análisis de la teología zubiriana tal como se muestra en dos de las obras más importantes de Zubiri: Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, y el Hombre y Dios. La con- clusión de este estudio es que la teología de Zubiri puede ser en realidad una forma de pa- nenteísmo transcendental.

There is unanimous consensus that 1. Introduction for Zubiri the problem of God was one of three problems that challenged him during Panentheism (or Lack Thereof) in Zubiri his entire life, and he devoted considerable Scholarship thought to it.1 Surveys of Zubiri’s views on God are Since this is a study examining the offered by Garagorri,2 Cescon,3 Juan José panentheism in the philosophy of Xavier García,4 Zárraga Olavarría,5 and Melero Zubiri, it is convenient to give a cursory Martínez,6 among others. examination to how this problem was pre- However, most studies treat Zubiri’s sented by the students of Zubiri’s philoso- theology from existential lines, or simply phy. assume that Zubiri’s theology is just an-

107 108 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______other version of classical theism. However, osophical system is directed, and without there are some hints that Zubiri’s theology it would not be understandable.14 He im- might be considered as a form of panen- plicitly recognizes a panentheism in Zubiri theism. Rivera Cruchaga, in an obituary when he states: “God is effectively in eve- for Zubiri, unconsciously alludes to the rything, but not “exactly” as the pantheist possibility of panentheism in Zubiri’s phi- would have it”.15 losophy. He remembers an anecdote where Despite all these hints, at the present Zubiri said to him: “When we are in the time the author is not aware of any identi- truth, we are in the Word of God, we live fication of Zubiri as a panentheist, save in God”.7 Cescon hints that Zubiri could perhaps a brief, ambiguous and inconclu- have understood the God-world relation- sive mention by Franciscan theologian ship in panentheistic fashion, without Félix Alluntis.16 using the specific term. Since Zubiri un- Panentheism derstood each thing as a manifestation of God, because it is not God and yet it is Panentheism can be described as “a formally constituted in God,8 Cescon con- ‘vision’ of God in the world and the world cludes that for Zubiri a separation be- in God”. This quote, which for now shall tween God and the world was inconceiva- remain unattributed, shows how according ble.9 to this particular view of the God-world A thorough study of the concept of relationship, God and the world are joined religation and his correlation with human together in some sort of ontological link. experience of God is done by Correa Panentheism can be generically de- Schnake.10 Without realizing it, Correa fined as the view of God where “God and describes religation in strongly immanent- the world are ontologically distinct and ist terms that might hint at panentheism: God transcends the world, but the world is “religation is a presence of God in things in God ontologically.”17 According to precisely in order to constitute them as Palmquist, “panentheism typically refers to real, and specifically in the human person a synthesis between traditional theism as that which is constituting its mission to and , whereby the whole world the ground of its own personal reality in (and everything in it) is believed to be in the configuration of himself.”11 God, though God transcends the bounda- Marquínez Argote sees a remarkable ries of the natural world and is more than similarity between the theologies of Zubiri nature.”18 and another panentheist thinker, Paul That is, the world and everything in it Tillich, despite evidence that Tillich was is in the being of God or ontologically in not aware of the thought of the other. God. Marquínez attributes this similarity to the The notion that the world is in the be- fact that both were disciples of ing of God, that is, ontologically in God, is Heidegger.12 For Marquínez, the similarity key for panentheism and it serves to dis- lies specifically in the analogy between the tinguish it from modern statements of devices of the “depth of the ultimate” in classical theism which strongly emphasiz- Tillich and religation in Zubiri. Corominas es the notion of divine immanence. Cooper also point out the deep influence of explains that for the classical theist, God Heidegger in the formulation of Zubiri’s is not only immanent; he could be abso- theology, making it instrumental in the lutely immanent because God’s transcend- abandonment of Zubiri’s previously held ence is absolute.19 modernistic convictions.13 David H. Nikkel offers a thorough Zárraga Olavarría, after offering an characterization of the concept: elaborate explanation of Zubiri’s view of “Panentheism” literally means “all in God, states that the problem of God was God.” (The word was coined by the for Zubiri the “north” to which all his phil- early nineteenth-century German phi-

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 109

______

losopher, Karl Christian Friedrich other thinkers have a panentheistic Krause.) It holds that the non-divine theology while avoiding use of the individuals are included in God, are term or simply not using it. fully within the divine life. God knows 2. Personal or nonpersonal panen- all that exists without externality, me- theism. Some panentheistic diation, or loss (though God’s thinkers see God as nonpersonal knowledge and valuation are more while others see God as personal. than the creaturely experiences that 3. Part-whole or relational panen- are wholly included in the divine ex- theism. Some panentheists regard perience). God empowers all that ex- the world as part of God, without ists without externality, mediation, or fully being God. Others see God loss (though there is genuine indeter- distinct from the world, but minacy and freedom of choice and ac- ontologically linked in a symbiotic tion which God empowers in the crea- fashion. turely realm). This is in contrast to traditional theism, which has tended 4. Voluntary or natural panentheism. to regard God as utterly distinct from Some panentheist thinkers regard the creation and the creatures. Deism creation of the world as necessary is an extreme of this tendency. On the for God. Others see the world as other hand, panentheism also distin- the product of a free creative act guishes itself from pantheism (literally from God. “all [is] God”). It holds that God is not 5. Classical or modern panentheism. reducible to the nondivine individuals, Classical panentheism affirms to the universe as a whole, or to the most theistic attributes of God structure of the universe; but rather including omnipotence, while the God transcends them, having a reali- modern panentheism states that ty—an awareness and a power—that God is affected by creaturely includes but is not exhausted by freedom. thereality of the creation and the ex- This paper will use Cooper’s distinc- periences and actions of the crea- tions as useful tools for the analysis of 20 tures. Zubiri’s doctrine of God. The ontological link between God and world is well described in the explicitly Note on Versions Employed panentheistic theology of Jürgen Molt- In order to write this study, both Na- mann, who states: “God’s essence has in ture, History, God and Man and God were itself the idea of the world from all eterni- examined in their original Spanish, in the 21 ty”. Since God’s essence is also His ex- latest editions available to this writer.25 istence, creation is necessary and an ex- Now, expressing the plenitude of Zubiri’s tension of the divine Being, instead of the thought in English can be a very difficult utterly contingent characterization of crea- undertaking. Melero Martínez ably puts it: tion prevalent in classical theism.22 Systematic analyses of panentheism Xavier Zubiri’s style is unique. He in- are available from Culp23 and Cooper.24 In vents neologisms, changes the mean- his work, Cooper offers a matrix for ana- ing of some terms. He is precise and almost pedantic in his terminology lyzing and classifying the various strands even when that makes for a not very of historical and contemporary panenthe- elegant Spanish. He gives a precise ism according to the following distinctions: philosophical meaning to expressions 1. Explicit or implicit panentheism. from the ordinary language and from Explicit panentheism is distinctly other sciences, such as: personality, assumed by its proponents, while

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 110 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______

personeity, reity, reality, religation, vague or incomplete. However, even so, theological, theologal, sentient, truth- they provide a good view of the initial stag- ing. These are just some examples.26 es of Zubiri’s theology. In order to quote the text in this work, the author used the English versions Introduction to the Problem of God available. For Nature, History, God the Although “Introduction to the Problem Fowler version was used.27 For Man and of God” is the first of the essays on Nature, God, the version employed was that of History, God dealing specifically with Joaquín A. Redondo.28 These translators Zubiri’s theology, it was a later addition. It deserve a lot of credit and admiration for appeared only in the fifth Spanish edition ably expressing the nuances of Zubirian (1963). The date would appear to situate thought in good English. this essay on Zubiri’s mature period; how- Throughout the work, quotes from ever, in the Preface to the sixth edition Zubiri will be taken from these sources Zubiri states: with some corrections or emendations It is basically a lecture given some 15 from the author when, in his criterion, a years ago, which will enable the prob- better or more precise rendering of a par- lems treated in the chapters In Regard ticular phrase could be used. Therefore, to the problem of God and Supernatu- any responsibility for any errors or mis- ral Being: God and Deification in Paul- takes in translation should lie with the ine Theology to be situated in proper author of this paper and not with the perspective.30 translators of the two previously men- Zubiri begins stating that the current tioned works by Zubiri. time is perhaps one of the times which Zubiri’s Panentheism in Nature, “most substantially lives the problem of History, God God.” It is necessary to examine this prob- Nature, History, God was Zubiri’s sec- lem from the intellectual way; and more ond book (the first one was his disserta- specifically, from philosophy. This is de- tion), and it contains a showcase of his spite the fact that this way is the most early thought. Published initially in 1944, vexing of them, because it is destined to 31 it contained a series of articles and essays leave almost no one satisfied. of diverse provenance, published between In the essay, Zubiri describes God in a 1932 and 1944.29 The fifth edition saw the paradoxical way. “In a certain rigorous inclusion of an additional essay, “Intro- and authentic sense”, the reality of God is duction to the Problem of God”. “the most unreachable of all realities.” Thus configured, the book deals with However, “the reality of God, though on the problem of God in three essays: “Intro- one hand the most distant and unreacha- duction to the Problem of God”, “In Regard ble of all realities, is also on the other the to the Problem of God,” and “Supernatural closest of them all.” The problem of God Being: God and Deification in Pauline The- affects to the very core of human exist- ology”. While these essays were diverse in ence. Man seeks an answer to this ques- origin and correspond to different stages tion because he feels shaken by it at its in Zubiri’s early thought, they all show a very root. remarkable unity on the matter of Zubiri’s However, a review of the status of the theology. problem of God in the history of philoso- This study shall approach each study phy shows that the philosophical way is on its own, and then a concluding synthe- not as simple as it would appear at first. sis will be attempted. It must be noted the Intellection of God, which here means an texts under study are three isolated es- intellectual justification of God’s reality, is says, which show a theology in develop- only achieved at the end of the path. What ment. Many statements are fragmentary, path is this? A cursory examination would

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 111

______form the impression that is just another religation man is shown everything that is existential analysis.32 However, right be- real. It is no mere experience of man, nor a hind the existentialist language lies the psychological or social phenomenon, or procedure of phenomenological analysis: a moral , but the very principle series of methodological reductions in or- and ground of any possible experience, der to examine the structures of con- including these four aspects. sciousness with the purpose of appre- This religation exposes man to that hending universal truths.33 This has not ultimateness which Zubiri calls deity.40 gone unnoticed. Several studies have This is another key concept to which pointed out the key place of phenomenolo- Zubiri will return later in Man and God. gy in Zubiri’s thought and specifically in Here, it is described as not necessarily his reflections on the problem of God.34 being God as a reality in and of Himself. Melero Martínez, for example, states that “Deity” is here just a trait, and an enig- phenomenology is the general humus matic one to boot, by which man is being (substrate) of Zubiri’s philosophy.35 shown all that is real. The discovery of this The first step is an analysis of human deity is thus the principle, the beginning of existence. Here we begin to see the initial any possible experience. Now, deity as steps of Zubiri’s phenomenological and described is just an enigma and because transcendental view of God: man is always of this enigmatic condition, deity forces positioning himself in respect of something human intelligence to learn about it. which Zubiri calls “ultimateness”. This is The second step is thus the solution of because man is not a mere thing; but as a the enigma of the deity, and this step is for strictly personal reality, it stands against Zubiri strictly demonstrative. Deity is in- the whole world in an absolute way and exorably grounded on “reality-deity” or his acts are the actualization of his abso- “divine reality”. It is this reality-deity as a lute reality. What is this ultimateness? character of the ultimate reality or as first Zubiri responds: cause. Since it is the first cause of all This ultimateness is not merely some- things, including human realities thing in which man “is,” but rather equipped with intelligence and will, it is a something in which man has to be in first reality which is also intelligent and order to be able to be what he is in free-willing. This reality is beyond the each of his acts. Thus the ultimate- world in order to ground the world as a ness has a grounding character.36 reality. Now, this poses a question: is this This grounding effected by the ulti- ultimate reality, is this first cause, God? mateness determines the absolute charac- This leads us to the third step. ter of human reality, although Zubiri still The third step points out that the first does not disclose at this point what or who cause which was shown in the second step this ultimateness is. This ultimateness to be also free and personal, is essentally a makes the man religated to it. Thus, personal, transcendent reality, and this an Zubiri introduces a key concept in his ex- “absolutely absolute” reality. To this reality planation, something that would be place we can call him God. Now, how can we say at the center of his view of the God-world that God is the grounding, the foundation relationship. Religation is “the absolute of the world? For Zubiri, the answer lies in personal character of human reality actu- an act of pure donation. Since it is a self- alized in the acts which it carries out”.37 donation of a pure and perfect will, it is As one commentator put it, religation is also pure ecstasy, of pure love. This pure the ontological link to the ground of exist- love is the highest form of causality. Thus, ence,38 or, more clearly, is the ontological God is the grounding of the world out of link by which man has access to God.39 By pure self-donation in love.

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 112 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______

In summary, the three steps are the duction to the problem of God, and here following: the key issue of God’s relation to the world 1. Analysis of the human existence: is explored with more detail than in the discover the ultimate reality, or previous chapter. According to Corominas, “deity”. this essay was heavily influenced by Heidegger’s philosophy.43 2. Deity as first cause or “divine Zubiri again uses a phenomenological reality”. method to access God as a reality, with 3. First cause as an absolutely religation as his key concept. In order to absolute, free and personal reality; know if there is a God, we must begin from that is, God. human existence. This is the starting point Zubiri ends this reflection saying that of Zubiri’s phenomenological access to even though finding God from the philo- God. Now, this is possible because for sophical way is possible by tracing these Zubiri phenomenology is not only ontolog- three steps, it is impossible to grasp ade- ical (as in Husserl), but also a way to ana- quate concepts about God. Man think by lyze reality and not only consciousness. abstracting concepts from things. Some of Man’s personhood is his being. Per- these concepts are “representative”, which sonhood is implanted into being in order are inadequate for thinking about God. to realize itself while living with other But others are “directionals”, which could things. Now, the “with” is one of human be Zubirian-speak for the phenomenologi- personhood’s formal ontological traits in cal intentionality; they point out to other itself. Man has to realize himself as a per- things. They could help in our way to- son during his own life. This life is a mis- wards God; but we must discern ways to sion; life is something sent to man, and God that are possible from others which existence is imposed upon him. What are not. In other words, and inasmuch as makes this imposition is also what “im- Aquinas’ arguments for God are ‘ways’, we pels” (move, prompt, make do) man to live. have the outline of a via phenomenologica Now, what is what impels man into to God.41 living? It’s something previous or “anteri- This paper by Zubiri purports to be a or”. This is something into which man mere introduction. However, in a few pag- holds onto in order to exist and realize es Zubiri manages to present several key himself. This is unavoidable since man concepts of his thinking, such as deity and cannot “be” by himself. “[Man] needs to be religation, or the hierarchy of absolute prompted to make himself. His ontological 44 realities. There is no explicitly panentheis- nihility is radical”. There is something, tic statement here, although it should be then, that makes us to be. noted that God is shown as the ground At this stage, Zubiri introduces his and foundation of any reality by “ulti- key concept in his access to God. This is a mateness”, and man is intimately linked to point that was identified as essential for 45 Him by “religation”. God is thus shown as both his theology and anthropology. We a transcendental reality which is the ulti- are prompted into being, we are obligated mate ground of existence for any being, to exist, because we are ontologically enabling their existence by their link to linked to what makes us to be: We are him in deity or religation. religated. Religation, thus, is that ontologi- cal link to something that previously In Regard to the Problem of God makes us to be.46 It’s a link to something from which we come and “makes there to In Regard to the Problem of God is a be”. Religation evidences the fundamentali- much larger text which was initially pub- ty of human existence, something that 42 lished as a journal article in 1935. There, causes that we are being being. Man is not Zubiri formulates a more detailed intro- only religated; he is constitutively religated.

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 113

______

Now, since man exists “with” things, There is no identification of the being and man is religated, the something that of with God. In God the religates man, religates with him the whole “there is” surpasses infinitely with re- world. In religation, “the whole material spect to the “is.” God is beyond being. universe appears”.47 Prima rerum creatorum est esse, being This means that religation is our way is before created things, the medieval to access all reality. This begs the ques- Platonists said. Esse formaliter non est tion: What is that something that religates in Deo ... nihil quod est in Deo habet man? For Zubiri, this is “what we call rationem entis, being is not formally in God”: a reality which Zubiri names as dei- God ... nothing which is in God has ty.48 But this isn’t God per se yet; it’s a the form of being, repeated Master reality that opens up for us the ultimate Eckhardt, and with him, all of the reality of God and shows that we are Christian mystics.52 grounded in that reality. God is ens fun- The concept of being becomes prob- damentale, the being which grounds us. lematic, and here is where panentheism Groundness is God’s chief attribute. comes full circle for Zubiri: Since God is Religation shows us that God is not a beyond being, we need a different concept thing. Man is not with God (as it is the of what a being is. The doctrine of creatio case with things); man is in God. Zubiri ex nihilo, paired with the Aristotelian idea here quotes Acts 17:28, “In him we live of substance, could lead to the undesira- and move and have our being”. Man does ble outcome of pantheism. Anything that not need to arrive to God; he is coming “is” is anything that comes from God. from Him. The problem of God is thus the Since God’s status is now a metaphysical problem of religation.49 While many have problem, the world also becomes problem- seen the concept of religation as an origi- atic at once. What is the answer? Panen- nal feature of Zubiri, Yáñez points out its theism: roots in the thought of José Ortega y Gas- Religated existence is a “vision” of God set, Zubiri’s mentor and professor of phi- in the world and the world in God.53 losophy in .50 The quote may be familiar to the read- God is thus a transcendental reality er, because it was used to characterize accessed through religation. By religation, panentheism at the begining of this paper. humanity and the whole world is “in God” This is the core of Zubiri’s panentheism. ontologically. Zubiri describes his panen- “God remains linked to the world ‘by rea- theistic vision in this terms: son of being’.”54 And the existential link is God is not something which is in man what Zubiri calls religation. as a part of him, nor is He something What is atheism, then? Atheism de- which is added to him, from outside; nies deity; it is a negative position regard- nor is He a state of conscience; nor is ing deity.55 Atheism comes when the man He an object. What of God there may feels that he is unbound; ignores his reli- be in man is only the religation gation, and identifies his being with his through which we are open to Him, life. This happens when the person feels and in this religation God becomes self-sufficient. “Success is the great crea- patent to us. Hence one cannot, strict- tor of atheism”.56 Human life is the ulti- ly speaking, talk of a relationship with mate absolute and, quoting St. John, 51 God. Zubiri states that man falls into “pride of But who is God? Even the verb “is” is life”.57 That’s why pride is the capital sin troublesome because God is beyond Being; among all capital sins. This prompts He is the One who makes being possible Zubiri to make an interesting insight: as ens fundamentale.

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 114 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______

The present time is a time of atheism; Supernatural Being: God and Deification in it is an time that is proud of its own Pauline Theology success. Atheism today affects, primo This is the last chapter on Nature, et per se, our time and our world. History, God, and it is made from the Those of us who are not atheists, are notes of two courses Zubiri gave; one on what we are despite our time, as the atheists of times past were so despite Hellenism and Christianity in Madrid theirs... As an historical period, our (1934-1935) and the other in Paris (1937- time is one of “unbinding” and dis- 1939). Zubiri says almost defensively fundamentation. For this reason, the “They are simply an exposition of some religious problem of today is not a New Testament texts, as seen by the Greek problem of differing , but the tradition. They are, therefore, simple his- problem of religion-irreligion.58 torical pages, nothing more. I must em- phasize this.”61 Despite this disclaimer, Since this position is not sustainable, however, this chapter has very little of man has tried to clutch himself in all actual New Testament theology and a lot of kinds of supports. Today, Zubiri says, is Christian Neoplatonism, incorporated al- the time of philosophy. But philosophy most wholesale into Zubiri’s theology. cannot be a way of life. Yet, “at the bottom Zubiri actually admits his partiality some of a great part of contemporary philosophy lines below, where he uses “Greek theolo- lies a surreptitious deification of exist- gy” as a synonym with Christian Neopla- ence”.59 tonism: “Personally I shall not hide my Again, panentheism could be athe- affection for Greek theology. Without any ism’s demise: exclusivism whatsoever, I have yielded in Surely the hour will come when man, the following pages to this propensity.” All in his intimate and radical failure, will in all, this is no minor footnote in Zubiri’s awake as if from a dream finding him- thought. It is a key development of his self in God and failing into the realiza- thinking62 and the basis for many con- tion that in his atheism he has done cepts of his theology, such as religation.63 nothing but be in God. Then he will Melero Martínez explains the im- encounter himself religated to Him, portance of this essay for Zubiri: not so as to flee from the world, and others, and himself; but the other way The inclusion of a text of theology, around, in order to sustain and main- Supernatural Being: God and Deifica- tain himself in being. God does not tion in Pauline Theology, which closes manifest Himself primarily as nega- the book, invites to reflection: Why tion, but as fundamentation, as what should a theological discourse ap- makes it possible to exist. Religation pears in a text of philosophy? Why the is the possibilitation of existence as last word in Zubiri is theological? The such.60 seriousness of these questions is heightened because it was an un- In this article Zubiri begins a phe- published text that could have been nomenological analysis of human exist- silenced. Only those who attended the ence and ends with a panentheistic vision course at Madrid, 1934-1935, or of God as a transcendental agent beyond those of the Foyer international des being but the ground where all beings étudiants catholiques of París in 1937 have their existence. Man apprehends the could have known of its existence. At world by being linked to this transcenden- this time, Zubiri is a secularized priest tal agent by religation. Without even begin writing about theology. This text was to define anything related to God’s charac- the last one to pass the ecclesiastical ter, Zubiri’s panentheism is already an censors in October 27, 1944, which essential part of his theology. held back the printing of the book.

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 115

______

Only the internal need of this dis- nature. In the Father, it is a principle; course would justify its inclusion.64 in the Son, as constituting agency; in Zubiri begins by investigating the be- the Holy Spirit, as self-donation in 72 ing of God and to the effect he draws heav- act. ily from ideas from Plato, , and the Being simultaneous and eternal ema- “Greek fathers”, which for Zubiri usually nations, both the Son and the Holy Spirit denotes the Christian Neoplatonist philos- are images, eikón (icons) of God with a ophers, among whom Pseudo-Dionysius is distinctively Neoplatonic flavor: heavily mentioned.65 “God is love” is no The Son is eikon because He proceeds mere statement; it is a metaphysical defini- immediately from the Father; the Holy tion mediated by the dialectic between Spirit is so because He proceeds from agape and eros66 God’s being is nothing the Father through the Son, and con- static but energéia, power, operating activ- sists in manifesting the identity of the ity.67 God is power; both as power that Father and Son: pneúma ek Patrós unfolds Himself to the world (agape) and di’hyioû ekporeuómenon. Such is the as a power that seeks its own and natural Greek scheme.73 perfection (eros).68 God’s love is both ec- This Neoplatonistic chain-of-being de- static and effusive manifesting itself in an piction of the internal structure of the internal emanation or “effusion”, the Trini- Trinity is essential to Zubiri’s view of God tarian life; and an external effu- and determines a panentheistic view of sion/emanation, a creation and a “deify- God’s relationship to the world. The Trinity ing” self-donation or deification.69 This is not only a model of divine life; “Let us insight by Zubiri was noted by some as the not forget that this expresses not only the basis for the later Zubirian concept of “the nature of the Divine life, but also the struc- 70 power of the real”. ture of creation and of deification”.74 God’s The Trinity is the mysterious mode of personal life is extended by ontological being an infinite God which is yet one by emanation (effusion) into creation and nature. In order to develop his view of deification. Trinity, Zubiri turns to Richard of St. Vic- The trinitarian structure of divine life, tor. Richard’s doctrine on the Trinity were then, causes the ontological and dialecti- used for Zubiri as building blocks to de- cal unity of God and the world that is the velop a trinitarian theology of eternal, per- distinctive mark of panentheism. By crea- sonal emanations.71 God is an infinite be- tion, God produces what is “the other” but ing whose infinity is pregnant with love, as an emanation of God Him”self”. If there understood as the very ecstasy of being. is any doubt that his could be panenthe- God is a personal reality full of love and ism, let’s take a look at the very own manifests itself as a personal reality (the words of Zubiri: Father) which due to his own perfection And hence the creation, at the same eternally generates as an emanation an- time it produces things distinct from other person (the Son), which is the per- God, maintains them in ontological sonification of the power, the dynamis of unity with Him through effusion.75 the Father. This perfection, when it is an actuality that reverts upon its essence is In keeping with this idea, Zubiri ex- 76 the person of the Holy Spirit. Zubiri de- plicitly rejects pantheism. By via negati- scribes in this way the procession— va, Zubiri states that the transcendence perichoresis, circumincession—of the God- production of creation is opposed to the head. immanent procession of the Divine per- sons. This is why Zubiri prefers the term Each person is distinguished from the “effusion” to emanation. For him, “emana- others by the way of having the divine tion” has a pantheistic connotation.

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 116 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______

Creation produces the otherness in beings, whose being is their life (zoé); and God and in creatures is an ascending at- finally, personal beings, whose being is traction to God and is patterned, as it was their spirit (pneûma).81 Second, there is previously stated, in the life of the Trinity. the cosmic unity of creation: “Being, as The emanations inside the Trinity set the active unity, unifies things in themselves pattern for a chain of being in creation: “in and is unified with God. But we added the transcendental act of creation, the that it also unifies each thing with all oth- three persons fulfill the same function in ers of its species.”82 the order of causality as in the life of the But there is more. A second effusion Trinity”77 Only God truly “is”, and His cre- from the Trinity where God personally ation is an absolute action in nothingness. gives Himself to the world: deification. By How this happens is interesting: deification, creatures get re-united with Creation, then, as an absolute act of God’s personal life and the cycle of divine God, is a voice of God in nothingness. love gets completed. Deification has two The logos has a subject: nothingness; specific moments: First, God makes the and a predicate: the Divine ideas. The nature of a creature —man— the nature of outcome is clear: nothingness is His own personal being. This is the reality transformed (if I may be permitted the of Christ in the Incarnation. Second, expression) into “someone” (subject), through Christ humankind participate and the ideas are projected onto this their personal life into God’s personal life. someone making of him a “something” To this, Zubiri calls Sanctification. Even (predicate). In this way the ontological through deification’s chief object is man, structure of creation is determined; the whole material creation cannot be the finite entity is above all a duality completely excluded from this process and between that it is and what it is.78 somewhat is affected by it. In this way, This leads to another statement that Zubiri’s panentheism grounds his philo- is rather obliquely panentheistic and a sophical interpretation of Christian and quotation of Acts 17:28, a locus classicus Roman Catholic doctrine. of many panentheists: Thus, in “God and Deification” we have a Neoplatonic theology which is Thus it is clear how, without blurring strongly immanentistic and, in the opinion the distinction between God and crea- tures, everything there is in them of of this writer, even panentheistic. God is positive being is owing to the presence viewed as effusive love and the Trinity is of God in them. If, dealing with finite His life as emanations or “effusions” of his causality, the action of the agent is love. Outside Trinity, God’s love emanates received in the patient, then in re- or effuses in two ways. Naturally, in crea- gards to the creator-actor the patient tion by effusing or emanating a hierarchy and its passivity only exist due to their of beings which remain ontologically presence in the agent. We are, we linked to God’s transcendental reality. move, and we live in Him, St. Paul will Supernaturally, by “deifying” His whole say, probably repeating a formula al- creation by a personal Incarnation in ready current in his day.79 Christ and sanctification by grace for hu- manity. Deification is a way for creation to Zubiri now works the consequences of return to God’s intimate life. his panentheism. First, there is an elabo- rate, Neoplatonic chain of beings, “the Summary ontological hierarchy of beings according to their greater or lesser formal perfec- In Nature, History, God Zubiri offers a tion.”80 This hierarchy has three orders in fairly complete account of his theology. the material realm: bodies (soma), whose God is the ground of all beings and the being is its light (phos); then the living ultimate transcendental reality. All things

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 117

______are ontologically linked to Him by religa- The problem tion. Religation is the vehicle for a panen- Zubiri begins by stating that all clas- theistic view of God. Probing deeper, this sical arguments or ways for proving God’s panentheism comes from an understand- existence are insufficient. For Zubiri, ar- ing of God highly influenced by Christian guments for God’s existence have started Neoplatonism. from two points of departure: reality, con- In the next section the study shall ex- sidered as nature—via cosmologica—, or amine Zubiri’s view of God at the other the study of a particular aspect of human end of his work, via the posthumous work nature—via anthropologica—, and all of Man and God. them are found insufficient.87 Concerning the cosmological sets of 1. Zubiri’s Panentheism in Man and God arguments, Zubiri examines Thomas Man and God was published posthu- Aquinas’ five ways88 and finds them incon- mously in 1984. As such, it reflects the clusive because they depend on a certain last, mature stage of Zubirian thought. set of metaphysical presuppositions, a When Zubiri died in 1983 the book was specific metaphysical interpretation of almost ready for publication.83 With The sensible reality: these ways take the validi- Philosophical Problem of the History of Reli- ty of Aristotle’s metaphysics for granted gions84 and The Theological Problem of and fail to take account of man’s true Man: Christianity,85 it was part of his “the- place in the universe.89 In addition, they ological” trilogy.86 may point out to something, but it is not For Zubiri, the problem of God has clear at all whether the end to which they two facets or aspects. First, it is necessary point out is the same thing. to determine whether there is something [T]he first way leads to a first un- which we call God. Second, if there is a moved mover; the second, to a first ef- God, it is necessary to determine if man ficient cause; the third, to the first can have any kind of access to Him. Thus, necessary being; the fourth, to a being in Man and God he approaches the issue in the plenitude of being; the fifth, to a in three parts: supreme intelligence. But do these 1. Human reality. five “primarities” refer to one and the same being? That must be proved.90 2. The problem of divine reality. But there’s more: even if we take for 3. Man as experience of God. granted that Thomas’ ways point out to The first part is devoted to questions the same supreme being, it is not clear if of philosophical anthropology; the second, that being is God. Duns Scotus saw it and to problems of philosophical theology; and formulated a two-way argument where he the third, to issues of theological anthro- started by proving the existence of a first pology. For reasons of efficiency, this being, and then he argued that this first study will focus mainly on the second part being is infinite and is thus God.91 But of the work, where the whole of Zubiri’s this is by no means clear, because it is not theology lies. evident that infinitude should be an exclu- In tackling the question of God’s ex- sive or necessary attribute of the divine.92 istence (or more properly, God’s reality) The anthropological way, so far as it Zubiri examines three points: the problem has been presented, is also unsatisfactory of God’s reality per se, the “justification” of for Zubiri. He summarizes anthropological God’s reality (really, an argument for God’s arguments in three types: an argument reality), and the characteristics of such from intelligence and truth (Augustine), reality. from the will and moral duty (Kant), or a feeling of dependence (Schleiermacher). In

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 118 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______the eyes of Zubiri, all of them fail. First, ond, it is a supreme reality. But here because they are reductionistic: these ar- Zubiri makes an interesting point, which guments do not consider man as a whole, would echo the Neoplatonists and Jakob but just a portion of him (intelligence, will, Böhme: God is a supreme reality but not a feelings). Second, these arguments pre- supreme being. God is beyond being.100 suppose a certain kind of dualism: “the Third, God is an “absolutely absolute reali- truth” against “other truths” in Augustine; ty”. The experience of religation is enig- the categorical will against all other voli- matic because it offers an idea of God but tions in Kant; the feeling of dependence immediately poses the question: Does against all other feelings in Schelierma- such reality exists? Zubiri now goes to cher. Third, the arguments require oppos- justify the reality of God’s existence. ing and distinguishing man from cosmos; man is considered as very different, to the Zubiri’s Justification of God’s Reality point of opposition, to the world. But this How can we say that God exists, is false because man is in the world. It is then? Zubiri does so by resorting to a 93 an “impossible antithesis”. How, then, phenomenological epokhé, that is, the can we arrive to God? suspension of judgment about the exist- In order to arrive to God, Zubiri turns ence or nonexistence of the phenomena to the now familiar phenomenological de- and the exclusion of any factual data or vice of religation. Religation is the ontologi- anything that would prevent the appre- cal link of the whole human existence to hension of the phenomena while fully de- the power of the real. “Religation is not scribing them,101 starting from his view of mere linking or sentiment of dependence, religation. He builds a “justification” of but the constitutive and formal turning God’s existence, which in fact is an expla- towards the power of the real as funda- nation of God’s existence analogous to an 94 ment of my personal life.” Religation is argument or demonstration.102 Thus, one 95 thus the very root of the human being. can think of Zubiri’s justification of God as This might appear to be just another a via phenomenologica, or phenomenologi- anthropological way, but Zubiri claims this cal argument for God even though it may is not the case. Religation is not a merely not be strictly a syllogistic argument. It is anthropological phenomenon. It is the very a long series of concatenated conclusions structure where the power of the real hap- where another key feature of Zubirian 96 pens. Religation is anthropological, cos- thought makes its appearance: sentient mological and ontological in character. intelligence.103 “From this follows that religation is not Reality is apprehended in two differ- something human in contradistinction to ent, yet simultaneous, moments. First, the the cosmic, but the very occurrence of all mind apprehends the quality of the thing 97 reality in man and of man in reality.” In (a thing is red, heavy, etc.) and second, the religation, the power of the real shows mind has a distinct impression of the real- itself as something ultimate, possibilitat- ity of the thing. Now, “[s]ince to apprehend ing, and impelling. This is a key feature of reality is intelligence, and to have impres- Zubirian cosmology and his phenomeno- sions is sensing, it follows that the intel- logical constitution of reality towards lective apprehension of man is sentient: 98 God. The significance of this concept is his intelligence is a sentient intelli- such that Cescon would write in 2007, gence.”104 “the Zubirian concept of ‘religation’ repre- Man has a sentient living in reality. sents the superseding of Thomism and the His life consists in acts made within reality 99 introduction of existentialism in Spain.” and this constitutes him as a person. Religation provides an idea of God When man acts, he does more than merely based on three points. First, God is the perform an action; he is slowly actualizing foundation of the power of the real. Sec-

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 119

______and building his Self, his person.105 “Man of reality itself where things understood as is a substantive reality and the Self con- real “more” than the things themselves? sists formally in the actualization of this Zubiri explains this maintaining that each reality in the world”.106 Due to this actual- thing is a vehicle of a character and power ization, the Self can stand in front of any that is not exhausted in the concrete reality and is thus an “ab-solute” being. things, but surpasses them. However, the Self, which is absolute, is But this is not clear by any means, also acquired; and due to this tension, and this unclearness comes from things man only a “relatively absolute” being, and themselves. This is the “enigma” of reality; is radically restless in life. Man’s personal reality is constitutively enigmatic. Because life then, is a process of actualization of of this, we are religated to the power of the the Self, which is a relatively absolute be- real in an enigmatic way. The enigma of ing. reality makes us restless because in every Man’s person is constituted in respect action, man feels a double question: “What to reality; reality is a constituting respectiv- is going to become of me, of my absolute ity of the human person as long as the being? And, What am I going to make of person is with the things. Since this is myself since I am making that being?”110 what constitutes the human person, the The power of the real throws intelligence reality is ultimate. Moreover, since reality towards this enigma, and makes intelli- is what enables the human to be his Self, gence aware of the radical foundation of reality is also possibilitating. Man’s reality each real thing in religation. “Religation is is then constantly in the making; and religation to reality in its enigma.”111 The since reality impels (moves, drives to) man root of this enigma is that the power of the to actualize his Self, reality is also impel- real is grounded in reality itself; but this ling. This reality dominates with its power, reality is beyond each concrete thing in but this dominance is not the result of itself. There is another reality which physical force, but it makes us physically grounds “the” reality; and since this reality aware of this reality. Thus, religation phys- determines my relatively absolute being, it ically determines man’s absolute being. must be an absolutely absolutely reality. Reality is “what makes me be I”.107 Zubiri identifies this absolutely absolute What is reality, then? It’s not some- reality with God.112 thing like a sea that bathes or submerges The power of the real can be found in things. Reality is a character of things; but the concrete reality of each thing. Since the reality of things exceeds their being. the power of the real is God as an abso- “The impression of reality is physically lutely absolute reality, He “is present for- transcendental to each thing. Because of mally in things constituting them as re- this, real things have the power of deter- al”113 Thus, the relationship God-world is mining my relatively absolute being.”108 In panentheistic: each thing we infer that being real is more The presence of God in real things is than being this or that. Each thing, in primarily that of a formal character. reality, determines the power of the real God is not primarily present in real and the ontological link to reality mani- things as the cause is in its effect, but fested as religation, and determines the is present constituting them formally absolute being of man. The “more” present as real. The possible effective causa- in each thing constitutes the power of the tion of God with respect to things is real and determines human personality.109 an ulterior interpretation required by The power of the real is based on the something prior: by the formal pres- “strange unity” between what a thing is ence of God in things. And this pres- concretely and the moment where being ence consists in the fact that the reali- real is being “more”. What is this character

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 120 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______

ty of each thing is constituted “in” a) God as an Ultimate, Possibilitating and God.114 Impelling Reality God is in things themselves and Zubiri describes the transcendental things are in God. That’s why each thing is reality (God) as reality with three modes: ambivalent: on one hand each thing is its ultimate, possibilitating, and impelling. own reality but on the other is constituted God is an ultimate reality not because in the absolutely absolute reality that is He is the Creator (though he is Creator). God. “Each thing, on one hand, concretely God is the ultimate reality because for is its own irreducible reality; but, on the things, the reality is a physical moment of other, is formally constituted in the abso- them grounded in God’s presence in them. lutely absolute reality, in God. The ambiva- “Without God, things would not be real. lence of reality simply consists in this God is, then, the ground of the ultimate- double moment of not being God, yet being ness of reality and of its power.”119 God is now, formally, constituted in God.”115 also the ground for reality being possibili- Consequently, God exists, and is for- tating, because God is the possibility of mally and wonderfully constituting possibilities; He is the absolute possibility the reality of each thing. Because of and Giver of possibilities. This enables this He is the fundament of the reality man the possibility of actualize his Self of each thing and of the power of the from God. Finally, God is impelling in the real in it.116 building of the Self. Since God is the abso- Zubiri summarizes his via phenomeno- lute reality, He impels man to build his logica to God on these steps: (relatively) absolute being.120 1. Man’s personal life consists in By these modes God is the ground of actualizing his Self, a relatively reality; He constitutes it beyond the four absolute Self, by religation. classical causes. This grounding is called by Zubiri the power of the real. 2. This Self is acquired and actualized by the physical operation of the b) The Power of the Real and Deity in power of the real as ultimate, Zubiri’s Panentheism possibilitating and impelling. The ground of all reality is for Zubiri 3. This power of the real is more than the power of the real.121 This power comes reality itself. from God’s formal and constituting pres- ence in all real things.122 It is not God’s 4. But the power of the real is power, but it is a vehicle of it. grounded in the very structure of This ontological structure of the power reality, distinct from real things, of the real is another vehicle of God in but constituting things as such. Zubiri’s panentheism: This reality is God.117 Certainly, the power of the real is not We see, then, that in order to prove formally the power of God, just as a God’s existence, Zubiri resorts to a panen- real thing is not formally God. But the theistic view of God where He grounds all power of the real “transports” the reality by the ontological link of religa- power of God, transports God as pow- 118 tion. er: real things are, on that account, After establishing his via phenomeno- the “seat” of God as power. Insofar as logica, Zubiri discusses some specific as- it is founded in God, the power of the pects of his transcendental view of God. real is “vehicle” and “seat”.123 God is in all things constituting them in their reality. The power of the real is manifestation of the absolutely absolute reality which is God. Things are “seat” of

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 121

______

God. It is an ontological condition which is be God, and that this “not-being-God” be a far beyond being mere effects. Insofar as way of being “in” God.”128 The relationship things are seat of God, they are deity.124 between God and human Self is not a Deity is reality itself when they show that boundary; it is a theological tension.129 they are constituted in God. “Real things The theological tension constitutes the qua real are the deity which manifests human Self. Each human build his own God, who is in them formally, constituting Self; but it is God the One who makes them. And because of this character of each human build his own Self. “God is deity they are the manifestation, the vehi- not mere natura me naturans, but realitas cle of God.”125 me reificans.”130 Since this is essential to Here we have the three cornerstones God’s function, it also follows that man is of the ontological structure of Zubirian implanted into God, “metaphysically im- panentheism: mersed” into him. 1. God is present in all things and all Zubiri is now ready to offer a more things are in God; and God specific description of his theology. grounds their reality by the power of the real. Characteristics of God’s Reality 2. Things are a seat of God’s Once he worked out the details of his immanent presence and this gives phenomenological-transcendental variety them “deity”. of panentheism, Zubiri offers a view of God’s reality in two stages: first, he deals 3. Finally, man accesses this reality with characters dealing with God consid- by the phenomenological device of ered in Himself and then he considers religation. some aspects of the God-world relation- In Zubiri’s own words: ship. God regarded as God is the absolutely a) God considered in Himself absolute reality as ultimateness, pos- sibilitation and impellence, formally Zubiri starts by stating that God is present in real things and constituting the “absolutely absolute” reality: “an abso- their reality. That reality is eo ipso dei- lutely absolute reality is the reality, which ty and manifestation of God, not in a is “in and by itself” full and absolute reali- general and abstract way, but in all ty considered as reality.”131 This does not the concretion history reveals to us. mean, however, that God is the highest Such is the reality of God, justified by Being, or the classical theistic notion that the way of religation.126 identifies God’s essence with His exist- ence. The reason is that God’s existence is c) God as Ground of the Human Self and fundamentally different to any other exist- The Reality ence of real things. God is “a reality, which By the link of religation, God is the through elevation is not only above and ground of any reality and specifically of beyond the difference of essence and exist- human life; He is the reality-ground. As ence, but also above and beyond its al- such, God grounds human freedom, the leged identity.”132 God’s metaphysical es- course of human life and the execution of sence of God is to be an absolutely abso- human actions.127 However, Zubiri is ad- lute reality, and the identity of essence amant in maintaining the distinction be- and existence in God are consequential to tween God and man but the core of this this, and not the reverse. distinction stems from his panentheistic Since this absolutely absolute reality view of God: “precisely because man is not is one and unique, the world is one and God, it is God who is making that man not unique and its foundation, i.e., God, is

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 122 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______also one and unique. Because of this, In God, to my way of thinking, per- Zubiri regards any polytheism as meta- sonhood is not consequent upon sub- physically impossible. The unicity belongs stantive reality nor upon His life, but to God as a transnumerical character. The is the very principle of it. Intelligence absolutely absolute reality (God) cannot be and volition are the way of being abso- one because there are no other similar lutely His-own, the way of realizing realities; God is one because the absolute- Himself with respect to what He al- ly absolute reality is absolutely one in and ready is as person. This clearly shows of itself. that, in God, intelligence and volition Besides being one, God is also a con- are necessary intrinsic moments of crete reality, an absolutely concrete reality. His substantive reality. The His- This concretion manifests in a personal ownness (suidad) is the fundament of reality: “In His absolute concretion, God is life, and life is the fundament of intel- 136 essentially personal.”133 Moreover, it is a ligence and volition. dynamic reality. “Dynamic” does not In summary, Zubiri ascribes the fol- means here that God is subject to a devel- lowing characters to God when considered opment process as in Hegelian thought or in Himself: absolutely absolute reality, process philosophy; “Dynamism is neither unicity, uniqueness, concreteness, dyna- action nor operation; to my way of think- mism (in the sense of actuality, not devel- ing, it is what I have called ‘giving of one- opment), personhood, life, intelligence and self’“ 134 and “the divine life is not a be- will. It is fair, thus, to conclude that coming”.135 Dynamism means here the Zubiri’s inner picture of God is fairly clas- self-possession of the reality in itself; and sical and roughly consistent with classical for Zubiri this is the essence of life itself. theism. Thus, God as an absolutely absolute reali- b) God Considered in Respect to ty implies His aseity, His self-actuality, Real Things and the World and therefore He is Absolute Life in Him- self. To put it in other words, God is an Zubiri understands God’s relation to absolutely absolute reality, and thus He is real things as a panentheistic relationship. a personal reality, and therefore He is a God is the grounding reality or realitas living reality. fundamentalis.137 However, God as an ab- God’s self-actuality is above all an ac- solutely absolute reality is independent of tuality in the sense of presentation of real- things. We cannot know God effectively in ity to Himself and thus, God’s self- Himself, but only as a ground and founda- actualization is also His intelligence. Since tion of real things.138 However, Zubiri this intelligent self-actuality is self- seems to imply that the God-things rela- possession, it is also fruition in the full- tionship is different from a typical World- ness of His own reality. Because of this, Soul relationship: God’s self-actuality considered as self- God is not grounding things as a kind possession is also God’s will. Therefore, of spirit underlying them; this would God’s self actualization is in fact the key to be an absurd animism. God is God’s intelligent and rational life. Note that grounding things as an absolute self- when speaking about God, Zubiri inverts giving. To ground is to self-give.139 the chain of faculties in human psycholo- Zubiri then specifies the relationship gy: Intelligence and will are moments of God-things among panentheistic lines. The God’s life, which in turn is a consequence formal presence of God in things is intrin- of His personhood, which in turn is a sic to real things, to the point that there is grounding principle of God’s metaphysical no physical or metaphysical separation reality: among God and things; but there is a real distinction between God and things. For

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 123

______

Zubiri, this is God’s “transcendence”: “This of God in the world is neither remote- characteristic, according to which God is ness nor identity.142 present in things with a formal and intrin- Consequently, Zubiri also denies sic presence, yet things are not God, is God’s identity with the world and God’s precisely what I call the transcendence of absence from it as it would be in deism or God “in” reality.” God is not transcendent agnosticism; and the relationship between to things; God is transcendent in things: God and the world is also a classic state- ment of panentheism: The transcendence of God does not God is simply transcendent “in” the consist in being beyond things, but world. The fundamentality of God is the other way around. Transcendence the worldly transcendence of God. The is precisely a mode of being in them, world formally carries God in itself.143 that mode in accordance with which God’s presence in things is not only they could not be real in any sense, formal and intrinsic, but also a constitut- unless they formally included in their ing presence. God makes things real and reality the reality of God, without this thus God, as an absolutely absolute reality in any sense making God identical to is a fountain-ality of reality; God is realitas the reality of things.140 fontanalis. Zubiri thinks that by applying his For Zubiri, then, God is an absolutely concept of “transcendence” he can avoid absolute reality, concrete, personal, living, both extremes of pantheism and deism or intelligent and willing, the power of the agnosticism. He denies pantheism because real, the ultimate, possibilitating and im- God’s being “in” things is also is an alteri- pelling reality, and the ground of religa- fying (or other-ifying) “in” and thus an tion. identity between God and things would be impossible. He also denies deism and ag- Summary nosticism, i.e., stating that God is absent from things, because things without God In Man and God, Zubiri develops an would not be real. “The transcendence of impressive feat: expound a coherent natu- God is neither identity nor remoteness, ral theology where he develops a transcen- but transcendence in things.”141 dental view of God that is yet compatible to standard Roman Catholic doctrine. Us- The panentheism of Zubiri is rein- ing religation as a key phenomenological forced by universalizing the statements device, he embarks in an explanation or with respect to things to the world. Things justification of the reality of God via a in reality have the attribute of respectivity, phenomenological epokhé or analysis. He and the unit of respectivity is the world. finds God as the ground of all reality, the Therefore, anything that can be predicated foundation of the power of the real, an of the God-things relationship can be said absolutely absolute reality that is ultimate, also of the God-world relationship: possibilitating and impelling. In Himself He is one, personal, living, intelligent and willing; and with respect of the world He is Hence, the formal and transcendent the ground of all reality. God is ontologi- presence of God in things is a pres- cally linked to the world as a transcenden- ence in the whole world as such. God tal personal power, grounding and giving is transcendent in things, and be- Being to all reality. cause of this He is transcendent in A comparison of Zubiri’s theology in the world. Indeed, for the same reason Man and God with the theology developed that the transcendence of God is not in Nature, History, God shows that Zubiri’s identity or remoteness, the presence theology is now more complete, with

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 124 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______themes that were previously hinted now There are places in both Nature, History, fully developed (i.e., religation). Despite the God and Man and God where Zubiri span of almost forty years between these speaks not only of God’s presence in the two books, the coherence of thought be- world, but also of the world in God.144 In tween the ideas in both books is remarka- view of this evidence, this study concludes ble. that there is a panentheism in the theolo- gy of Xavier Zubiri. 2. Conclusions Zubiri strongly affirms the immanence of God in the world at an extent that bor- After considering the distinctive fea- ders on pantheism. In “God and Deifica- tures of Zubiri’s theology in both Nature, tion” he maintains that a necessary con- History, God and Man and God, the re- sequence of the chain of being is the cos- markable uniformity and conceptual co- mic unity of creation and the unity of be- herence between two works that are sepa- ing and God (who Himself is beyond be- rated by a time span of roughly four dec- ing). Religation guarantees this ontological ades is nothing short of remarkable. There link of immanence. are developments, of course, such as the At the same time, Zubiri denies em- concept of the power of the real; but the phatically that his view of the God-world key concepts such as religation, deity, and relationship should be considered as pan- the phenomenological epokhé as a method theism;145 that is, he denies that the God- to access God’s reality show an amazing world relationship should be understood continuity. Nevertheless, there is a refine- as an identity. Zubiri denies such identity ment of concepts and themes in the latter and instead maintains a distinction be- work. By Man and God, Zubiri shows his tween God and the world. Furthermore, theology as one of the pillars of his the necessary character of the unity of thought, and a powerful contribution to God and the world should not be extended philosophy in itself. to the act of creation itself. Once created, This study shall conclude by first ex- the cosmic unity of being and God is nec- amining the issue of whether there is a essary; but creation itself is contingent panentheism in Zubiri’s theology; second, because it is the product of God’s freedom. by considering whether this panentheism A good summary of the God-world re- could be described as a transcendental lationship in Zubiri is provided by Antonio panentheism; third, by contrasting the González, who does so while managing to peculiar aspects of Zubiri’s panentheism avoid the use of the term “panentheism”. against Cooper’s 5-point matrix; and then a final evaluation will be attempted. This means then that God is not seg- regated from the world, and the ac- There Is a Panentheism in Zubiri’s theology cess to Him is not, then, a fleeing from the world, but a deepening in the real- There is no doubt that Zubiri’s view of ity of things. This is not pantheism God is strongly immanentistic, a charac- because God is an absolutely absolute terization that is common to both panen- reality with respect to the world. But theism and modern classical theism. Many also it is not possible to maintain that statements given by Zubiri are consistent God and the world are “two” realities. with panentheism, but they cannot ex- God and the world are not two, but clude a strongly immanentistic version of they are not one, neither. It is not classical theism. God is the power of the about identity or duality, but precisely real and the ground of all reality. For about transcendence. God is trans- Zubiri, God is in the world and constitutes cendent “in” things, without being any and all reality. separated from them. This is what However, there are other statements Zubiri means when he writes “God that are consistent with panentheism.

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 125

______

transcends the world, but the world is 3. Part-whole or relational immanent to God.”146 panentheism. Since Zubiri states both the ontologi- 4. Voluntary or natural panentheism. cal immanence of God in the world and the world in God, and the distinction be- 5. Classical or modern 148 tween God and His creatures, his view of panentheism. God is a form of panentheism. This matrix will now be applied to Zubiri’s panentheism. Zubiri’s Panentheism Is a Transcendental Explicit or implicit panentheism Panentheism There are some contemporary panen- For Zubiri, God is the power of the re- theists who never identified themselves as al. Religation exposes man to an ultimate such despite meeting with the standard reality which Zubiri calls “deity”. What definition, such as Teilhard de Chardin or deity does, among other things, is to pre- Pannenberg. On the other hand, there are sent all that is real to man by religation other thinkers who explicitly identified and manifest what is real as being themselves as panentheists, such as grounded with God. This characterization Moltmann or Philip Clayton. Where does of God could be described as transcenden- Zubiri falls in this distinction? tal. In fact, Zubiri describes the absolutely The answer should be evident. Even absolute reality as transcendental to though Zubiri’s view of God is clearly things.147 panentheistic, Zubiri never identified his In fact, since God constitutes all reali- view as such. Therefore, Zubiri’s panen- ty and is behind of all things as the power theism should be regarded as an implicit of the real accessed by religation, it is in- panentheism. escapably a transcendental reality. God is A question could be raised on why a reality which determines our existence, Zubiri did not identify himself as a panen- using the power of the real as a condition theist. Of course, perhaps he was not for the apprehension of things, and is aware of the concept; but there are two timeless and universal, the ground of both difficulties to this notion: first, because objects and subject. Zubiri was one of the leading philosophical Moreover, this is not an accidental or minds of his time, regarded as a peer by side feature of Zubiri’s panentheism; it is Husserl and Heidegger, and possessed an mediated by the key themes of religation, astonishing breadth of knowledge. deity, the power of the real, the absolutely Thus, it is somewhat unlikely that he absolute reality, and transcendence. Thus, was not exposed to this concept. Secondly, it is an essential, distinguishing, pervasive it should be kept in mind that Zubiri is a characterization of Zubiri’s view of God. Spaniard, raised at the beginnings of the Therefore, this study concludes that 20th century. Krause, the inventor of the Zubiri’s panentheism can be thought of as term “panentheism”149 was highly influen- a transcendental panentheism. tial in Spain, to the point that Julián Ma- rías states that his thought “enjoyed an Zubiri’s Panentheism and Cooper’s Matrix unusual vitality” in that country. Krausism was mediated in Spain by his As previously stated in this paper, chief Spanish apologist, Julián Sanz del Cooper offers a matrix of distinctions to Río (1814-1869) and later by Francisco study panentheism. These are: Giner de los Ríos (1839–1915).150 The term 1. Explicit or implicit panentheism. “panentheism” was well known in Spain 2. Personal or nonpersonal by the time of Zubiri’s formative years. panentheism. And yet, Zubiri does not use the word

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 126 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______

“panentheism” even once despite being a On the other hand, however, Zubiri term well known because of the Krausist affirms the personal reality of God and influence in Spain. describes Him as a personal, living, free, There may be a reason for that. intelligent, and willing reality. Thus, Corominas points out a little known fact of Zubiri’s God would hardly be the nonper- Zubiri’s life, his excommunication in 1922 sonal being of non-personal panentheists for his adherence to Modernism, the Ro- such as Ruether or Tillich. man Catholic counterpart to Liberal Prot- Therefore, even though he is influ- estantism who was thoroughly condemned enced by Neoplatonism, it can be main- by Pope Pius X in his encyclical letter Pas- tained that Zubiri is a personal panenthe- cendi dominici gregis (1907).151 Zubiri later ist, because for him God is both the recanted from his Modernist views, but he ground-of-being and an eminently person- was always suspicious in the eyes of the al reality. Nationalist-Catholic establishment that Part-whole or relational panentheism ruled Spain after the Spanish Civil War. Certain types of panentheism main- As Corominas aptly puts it: tains that the world is part of divine na- For Zubiri, Modernism was no mere ture while others view the world as a rela- anecdote. It marked indelibly his life tional correlate of God. For Zubiri, the and work, somewhat conditioned the world is “in God”. Moreover, creation is an free expression of his , and made emanation from God and things are kept him adopt a certain restraint up to the in ontological unity with Him.155 However, end of his days in expressing certain Zubiri still maintains a firm distinction theses. [Zubiri] wanted to be sure that between God and the world. Thus, Zubiri everything that he said was orthodox should be regarded as a part-whole panen- and he was willing to remain silent theist, with some qualification. before entering again in a conflict with the Church.152 Voluntary or natural panentheism. This circumstance may explain why This distinction stems from how different Zubiri never wanted to identify his theolo- panentheisms have answered the ques- gy as panentheism: he wanted to avoid tion: “Could God exist without a world?” If even the slightest suspicion of heresy. But the answer is that the world is a necessity this is an argument from silence. The real for God, then this panentheism is natural; answer, of course, is unknown. while if the answer is that God is free and Personal or ground-of-being panentheism creation is an act of divine freedom, then For some thinkers, mostly those of the we have a voluntary panentheism. Neoplatonic tradition, God is the non- personal Ground of Being. For others, Zubiri’s position on this distinction is mostly modern and contemporary panen- clear. He maintains inequivocally the at- theists, God is personal and their panen- tribute of divine freedom and affirms crea- theism is relational or interpersonal. tion as a product of God’s free agency. On one hand, Zubiri clearly follows Moreover, Zubiri affirms divine freedoms the Neoplatonic tradition, and this is clear- explicitly against gnosticism and Ploti- ly shown in the theology of his essay “Su- nus.156 He does not even hint to the “com- pernatural Being: God and Deification in patibilist” compromise on divine free- Pauline Theology”153 God is the ground of dom.157 Therefore, in Zubiri we have a any and all beings and any and all reality; distinctly voluntary panentheism.158 He is the absolutely absolute reality, the Classical or modern panentheism ultimate, possibilitating, impelling reality. The final distinction is between a This would place Zubiri in the ground-of- panentheism that affirms divine omnipo- being field.154 tence and does not allow for creatures to

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 127

______affect God, which was the case of classical ology highly original and yet deeply re- panentheists, or stating that God is affect- spectful of Roman Catholic doctrine. ed by human action. In the case of Zubiri, Upon careful examination of the rele- his panentheism is a way to explain how vant texts in both Nature, History, God and God is the ground of all reality; God affects Man and God, this study finds that the creatures by the power of the real, but theology of Xavier Zubiri is a transcenden- creatures do not affect God. Therefore, tal panentheism, mediated by a phenome- Zubiri’s panentheism is a classical panen- nological device (religation), and character- theism. ized as implicit, personal ground-of-being, part-whole, voluntary, and classical. Final Evaluation Zubiri maintains a personal God, but The contribution of Xavier Zubiri to modified by a modified Neoplatonic ontolo- philosophy is of such a significance that gy of “chain of being.” he could be counted, in all justice and In all, this is the work of a genius, a without any exaggeration, among the towering mind who despite his physical greatest philosophical minds of all time. self-exile influenced and still remains in- His approach to the problem of God shows fluential for much of the current Roman the breadth and depth of thought in Catholic philosophy and theology, and a Zubiri, as well as the formulation of a the- significant contribution to the history of philosophy.

Notes

1 The other ones were the problems of intelli- http://culturavasca.asmoz.org/trabajos/200 gence and the problem of reality. See Fran- 6-2007/Carlos_Zarraga.pdf. cisco Correa Schake, “Zubiri: la experiencia 6 José María Melero Martínez, “El problema como vía de acceso del hombre a Dios. Una teologal del hombre en Xavier Zubiri” (PhD aproximación inicial a su trilogía religiosa” diss., Universidad de Murcia, 2008), pp. 220- Teología y Vida 45 (2004): p. 479; Everaldo 242. Cescon, “Uma introdução ao pensamento fi- 7 Jorge Eduardo Rivera Cruchaga, “Recordan- losófico-teológico de Xavier Zubiri (1898- do a Xavier Zubiri,” Anuario Filosófico de la 1983),” Síntese - Revista de Filosofia 31, no. Universidad de Navarra 17 (1984): p. 175. 100 (2004): p. 258; Juan José García, “Inte- Accessed March 3, 2014. ligencia sentiente, reidad, Dios: Nociones 8 Xavier Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, 3rd ed. (Ma- fundamentales en la filosofía de Zubiri,” drid: Alianza Editorial / Sociedad de Estu- Cuadernos de pensamiento español 30 dios y Publicaciones, 1985), p. 149. (2006): 1-73. 9 Cescon, “O problema de Deus e do seu aces- 2 Paulino Garagorri, La filosofía española en el so e a experiência de Deus,” p. 380-383. siglo XX: Unamuno, Ortega, Zubiri (Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1985), p. 118-157. 10 Correa Schake, “Zubiri: la experiencia co- mo vía de acceso del hombre a Dios. Una 3 Everaldo Cescon, “O problema de Deus e do aproximación inicial a su trilogía religiosa.” seu acesso e a experiência de Deus,” Teología y Vida 44 (2003): 373-394; Cescon, “Uma in- 11 Ibid., p. 492. trodução ao pensamento filosófico-teológico 12 See Germán Marquínez Argote, “Paul Til- de Xavier Zubiri (1898-1983)” lich y Xavier Zubiri: Planteamiento del problema de Dios,” The Xavier Zubiri Re- 4 García, “Inteligencia sentiente, reidad, Dios.” view 8 (2006): 103-110; for Tillich’s panen- 5 Carlos Zárraga Olavarría, “Xavier Zubiri: theism, see John W. Cooper, Panentheism- Filósofo vasco,” 2007, accessed March 3, The Other God of the : From 2014, Plato to the Present (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), chap. 8; David H. Nikkel,

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 128 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______

Panentheism in Hartshorne and Tillich: A Provincias Dominicanas en España, 2nd Creative Synthesis (New York: Peter Lang ed., 5 vols. (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Publishing, 1995), accessed March 3, 2014. Cristianos, 1994), I, q. 19 a. 3 ad 5; I, q. 13 Jordí Corominas, “Xavier Zubiri y la crisis 46, a. 1. modernista,” The Xavier Zubiri Review 8 23 John Culp, “Panentheism,” in The Stanford (2006): 17-57. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2013, 14 Zárraga Olavarría, “Xavier Zubiri: Filósofo ed. Edward N. Zalta (2013). vasco,” p. 60. 24 See Cooper, Panentheism-The Other God of 15 Zárraga Olavarría, “Xavier Zubiri: Filósofo the Philosophers, “Basic Terms and Distinc- vasco,” p. 59. tions in Panentheism”, in Chapter I, pp. 26-30. 16 Félix Alluntis, quoted by Francisco-Xavier Sotil Baylos, “La conceptuación zubiriana 25 Xavier Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, de la presencia eucarística de Cristo: críti- 9th ed. (Madrid: Alianza Editorial / Socie- cas y valoración de las mismas,” The Xavier dad de Estudios y Publicaciones, 1987); Zubiri Review 9 (2007): p. 43, note 186. Zubiri, El hombre y Dios. Here is the relevant part: “Alluntis remem- 26 Melero Martínez, “El problema teologal del bers that Zubiri identifies that presence of hombre en Xavier Zubiri,” p. 74. God with His transcendence, understood 27 Xavier Zubiri, Nature, History, God, trans. by him —in a way that is different of the Thomas B. Fowler, Jr. [book on-line] traditional sense of the term— not as “be- (Washington, D.C.: University Press of ing beyond” things (transcend “to”) but America, 1981); available from precisely as their mode of being “in” them http://zubiri.org/works/englishworks/nhg (transcend “in”), by virtue of which things /nhgtoc.htm ; Internet ; accessed 14 March are different of God but not separate from 2014. Him. And Alluntis comments that in this 28 Xavier Zubiri, Man and God, trans. Joaquín point Zubiri “uses expressions that [...] A. Redondo, M.E., M.A. (Phil) [book on- gave motives to people to talk about a line]; available from Zubirian ‘kind of pantheism’ (pantheism- panentheism). We believe there is no basis http://www.catholicphilosophy.com/sys- for that.” tmpl/door/index.html ; Internet ; accessed 14 March 2014. Note that the website 17 Cooper, Panentheism-The Other God of the structure makes for an awkward and cum- Philosophers, p. 27. bersome navigation and makes posting a 18 Stephen Palmquist, “Kant’s Moral Panen- more specific URL impossible. theism,” Philosophia 36, no. 1 (2008): 17- 29 Author’s Introduction to the English Edi- 28, doi:10 . 1007 / s11406 - 007 - 9098 - tion, in Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios. 0, p. 20. See also the interesting note 13 in Fernando Inciarte Armiñán, “Observacio- 30 Preface to the Sixth Edition, on Zubiri, nes histórico críticas en torno a Xavier Zu- Naturaleza, Historia, Dios. See also Melero biri,” Anuario Filosófico de la Universidad Martínez, “El problema teologal del hombre de Navarra 1 (1971): p. 241-242. Accessed en Xavier Zubiri,” p. 134-138. March 3, 2014 31 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 396- 19 See Cooper, Panentheism-The Other God of 397. the Philosophers, p. 329-330. 32 An existential analysis is an ontological 20 Nikkel, Panentheism in Hartshorne and analysis of the existent (Dasein), prior to Tillich: A Creative Synthesis, p. 2-3. any psychological, biological or theological descriptions of consciousness, which re- 21 Jürgen Moltmann, Trinidad y Reino de veals the consciousness as a phenomenon Dios: La doctrina sobre Dios (Salamanca: of the existent (Dasein) presented to it as Sígueme, 1983), p. 122. calling. For a cursory description see Jesús 22 For example see , Summa Conill, “La fenomenología en Zubiri,” Pen- Theologica: Suma de Teología, Edición diri- samiento 53 (1997): p. 121. gida por los Regentes de Estudios de las

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 129

______

33 See for example Robert C. Solomon, Conti- 1983),” p. 276. nental Philosophy Since 1750: The Rise and 46 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 428. Fall of the Self, vol. 7, A History of Western 47 Ibid., p. 429. Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), chapter 9, p. 129-138. 48 Ibid., p. 431. 34 For example Conill, “La fenomenología en 49 Garagorri, La filosofía española en el siglo Zubiri,” who states: “Zubiri is, together XX: Unamuno, Ortega, Zubiri, p. 131-134. with Ortega, the privileged locus for the re- 50 Samuel Yáñez, “Vida y religación,” Teología ception and assimilation of phenomenology y Vida 46 (2005): 570-581. in Spain. There is no possible contextual- 51 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 435. ization of the thought of Ortega and Zubiri if this is not done in connection with phe- 52 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 441. nomenology”. See also Correa Schake, “Zu- This quote not only echoes Eckart, but biri: la experiencia como vía de acceso del Scotus Eriugena as well, as Zubiri hombre a Dios. Una aproximación inicial a acknowledges in footnote 50 of the essay. su trilogía religiosa”; Corominas, “Xavier See also Cooper, Panentheism-The Other Zubiri y la crisis modernista,” p. 26-27; God of the Philosophers, p. 47-52. Thomas B. Fowler, “Introduction to the Phi- 53 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 443. losophy of Xavier Zubiri,” The Xavier Zubiri 54 Ibid., p. 444. Review 1 (1998): 5-16; Alberto Basabe Mar- 55 Ibid., p. 450. On the topic of Zubiri and tín, “La metafísica realista de Xavier Zubiri: atheism, see also Juan José García, “Legi- Interpretación metafísico-apriorística de la timidad de las opciones no teístas en la fi- metafísica realista de Zubiri” (PhD diss., losofía de Xavier Zubiri,” The Xavier Zubiri Universidad de Deusto, 1990), p. 59-62; Review 11 (2009): 47-54. Antonio Pintor Ramos, “Los inicios de la fe- nomenología en España,” Diálogo Filosófico 56 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 449. 46 (2000): p. 47-49. 57 Ibid., p. 449; see 1 John 2:16. 35 Melero Martínez, “El problema teologal del 58 Ibid., p. 452. hombre en Xavier Zubiri,” p. 20. 59 Ibid., p. 453. 36 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 398. 60 Ibid., p. 453. 37 Ibid., p. 398. 61 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 456. 38 Melero Martínez, “El problema teologal del The New Testament texts are supposedly hombre en Xavier Zubiri,” p. 135. “certain texts from the Epistle to the Ro- 39 Marquínez Argote, “Paul Tillich y Xavier mans” (p. 457). Zubiri: Planteamiento del problema de 62 Ibid., p. 457. Zárraga Olavarría, “Xavier Dios,” p. 107. Zubiri: Filósofo vasco,” p. 48, note 32 40 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 408. points out that this chapter came out from Zubiri’s exposure to the Russian Orthodox 41 For a good summary, see José Luis Martín theologian Myrra Lot-Borodine, who was a García-Alós, “Dios como realidad religante vehicle for Russian mystics such as Ber- del hombre. En homenaje a Xavier Zubiri,” diaev, Chestov, Soloviev, Boulgakov and Arbor 116 (1983): 265-289. Lossky, among others. Zárraga quotes O. 42 According to the official Zubiri bibliog- González de Cardedal about the impact of raphy: Revista de Occidente 149 (1935) this exposure to Zubiri: “This is the world 129-159. that Zubiri discovers (in Paris) that it 43 Corominas, “Xavier Zubiri y la crisis mo- means a revolution for his theological hori- dernista.” zon”. On the impact of this course on the 44 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 427- whole of Zubiri’s theology, see also Coro- 428. minas, “Xavier Zubiri y la crisis modern- ista”; Melero Martínez, “El problema teo- 45 Cescon, “Uma introdução ao pensamento logal del hombre en Xavier Zubiri,” p. 57. filosófico-teológico de Xavier Zubiri (1898-

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 130 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______

63 Marta Jiménez Valverde, “La religación en 84 Zubiri, X., El problema filosófico de la histo- el pensamiento de Xavier Zubiri,” Revista ria de las religiones (Madrid: Alianza Edito- de Filosofía de la Universidad de Costa Rica rial / Sociedad de Estudios y Publicacio- 2, no. 6 (1959): 59-64. nes, 1993). English translation: The Philo- 64 Melero Martínez, “El problema teologal del sophical Problem of the History of Religions, hombre en Xavier Zubiri,” p. 57. trans. Joaquín A. Redondo, 1999 [book on- line]; accessed 15 April 2014; available 65 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 473ff; from Cooper, Panentheism-The Other God of the http://www.catholicphilosophy.com/sys- Philosophers, pp. 45-47. tmpl/translatorsintro/index.html; Internet. 66 “There is a profound difference, indeed 85 Zubiri, X., El problema teologal del hombre: almost an opposition, between agape and Cristianismo (Madrid: Alianza Editorial / eros. But this opposition always occurs Sociedad de Estudios y Publicaciones, within a common root; it is an opposition of 1997). English translation: Christianity, direction within the same general line: the trans. Joaquín A. Redondo, 2001 [book on- ontological structure of reality.” Zubiri, Na- line]; accessed 15 April 2014; available turaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 464. from 67 Ibid., p. 467-468. http://www.catholicphilosophy.com/sys- 68 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 473. tmpl/translator/index.html; Internet. 69 Ibid., p. 480-481. 86 See Marquínez Argote, “Paul Tillich y Xa- 70 Juan José García, “El poder de lo real en vier Zubiri: Planteamiento del problema de Xavier Zubiri y su lectura de los padres Dios,” p. 104; Zárraga Olavarría, “Xavier griegos,” The Xavier Zubiri Review 4 (2002): Zubiri: Filósofo vasco,” p. 10, 47. 19-66. 87 See Melero Martínez, “El problema teologal 71 Interestingly, when Moltmann explicitly del hombre en Xavier Zubiri,” p. 157-171; assumes his panentheism in Trinity and Everaldo Cescon, “A “trilogia teologal” de the Kingdom he also gives credit to Richard Xavier Zubiri: Contribuições e problemas of St. Victor. “The basis [of Moltmann’s abertos,” The Xavier Zubiri Review 9 (2007): panentheism] is Richard of St. Victor’s doc- p. 114-115. trine of the Trinity” See Moltmann, Trinidad 88 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 118-121. com- y Reino de Dios: La doctrina sobre Dios, pare with Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. chapter 4, note 17 (p. 122). 2 a. 3 resp. 72 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 486. 89 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 121. 73 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 490. 90 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 121-122. 74 Ibid., p. 491. 91 For Duns Scotus’ argument, see Frederick 75 Ibid., p. 493. Copleston, A History of Philosophy, 9 vols. (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1946- 76 See ibid., p. 493, 496. 1975; New York: Doubleday, 1994), vol. 2 77 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 495. chap. 48 No. 3, pp. 520-523; Julián Ma- 78 Ibid., p. 496. rías, Historia de la Filosofía, 21st ed. (Ma- drid: Revista de Occidente, 1969), III, 10, 79 Ibid., p. 497. Emphasis of this author. A), p. 173; Carlo Balic, “Scotism,” in Sa- 80 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 497. cramentum Mundi, vol. 6 (London: Burn & 81 Ibid., p. 499. Oates, 1968), 52-54; Johannes Hirschber- 82 Ibid., p. 501. ger, Historia de la Filosofía, 3rd ed., trans. Luis Martínez Gómez, 2 vols. (Barcelona: 83 See Ignacio Ellacuría, “Presentation”, in Herder, 1968), vol. I, p. 431; “Duns Escoto Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. i-x; Marquínez (Juan)” in José Ferrater Mora, Diccionario Argote, “Paul Tillich y Xavier Zubiri: Plan- de filosofía, 5th ed., 2 vols. (Buenos Aires: teamiento del problema de Dios”; García, Editorial Sudamericana, 1965), vol.1 , pp. “Inteligencia sentiente, reidad, Dios,” p. 17. 488-490; Michele Federico Sciacca, Historia de la Filosofía, 3rd ed., trans. Adolfo Muñoz

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 131

______

Alonso and Juan José Ruiz Cuevas (Barce- la filosofía contemporánea hasta los pro- lona: Luis Miracle, Editor, 1958), pp. 254- blemas actuales, 2nd ed., trans. Claudio 255. Matons Rossi and Juan José Ruiz Cuevas 92 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 123. (Barcelona: Luis Miracle, Editor, 1956), IV, 2 (p. 143); Marías, Historia de la Filoso- 93 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 126. fía, p. 398-399. 94 Ibid., p.128. See also Melero Martínez, “El 102 See García, “Legitimidad de las opciones problema teologal del hombre en Xavier no teístas en la filosofía de Xavier Zubiri.” Zubiri,” p. 171-202. 103 For a concise explanation of the concept, 95 Even though Zubiri appears to reject cos- see Fowler, “Introduction to the Philoso- mological arguments —based on an out- phy of Xavier Zubiri,” p. 10-13. dated notion of causality— in favor of a phenomenological approach based on reli- 104 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 135. gation to the power of the real, some have 105 Ibid., p. 136. argued that the power of the real in Zubiri 106 Ibid., p. 136. is just another notion of causality; see 107 Ibid., p. 140. Thomas B. Fowler, “Causality and Personal Causality in the Philosophy of Xavier 108 Ibid., p. 141. Zubiri,” The Xavier Zubiri Review 10 (2008): 109 José Antonio Hernanz Moral, “La consti- 91-112. On the other hand, Antonio Gon- tución del orden transcendental en la me- zález points out that in one of his minor tafísica de Xavier Zubiri,” Estudios Lati- writings, Zubiri appears to have endorsed a noamericanos, nos. 14-15 (2004): 5-23. cosmological argument for God; see Anto- For the place of the transcendental in the nio González, “La vía cósmica hacia Dios metaphysics of Zubiri see Basabe Martín, según Xavier Zubiri,” The Xavier Zubiri Re- “La metafísica realista de Xavier Zubiri”; view 7 (2005): 91-107. Roberto Hernáez Rubio, “El realismo sis- 96 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 129. témico de Xavier Zubiri” (PhD diss., Uni- versidad del País Vasco, 1995), p. 69-83. 97 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 129. 110 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 146. 98 See also the characterization of religation offered by Jesús Conill-Sancho, “«La voz de 111 Ibid., p. 80. la conciencia». La conexión noológica de 112 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 147. moralidad y religiosidad en Zubiri,” Isego- 113 Ibid., p. 148. ría, no. 40 (2009): p. 124. For the power of the real, see García, “El poder de lo real en 114 Ibid., p. 148. Emphasis in the original. Xavier Zubiri y su lectura de los padres 115 Ibid., p. 149. Emphasis of this writer. griegos,” p. 25-38. 116 Ibid., p. 149. 99 See Everaldo Cescon, “A “trilogia teologal” 117 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 149. de Xavier Zubiri: Contribuições e proble- 118 See Basabe Martín, “La metafísica realista mas abertos” The Xavier Zubiri Review 9 de Xavier Zubiri,” p. 182-183. (2007), 113. 119 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 153. 100 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 131. 120 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 154-155. 101 On the epokhé see Diogenes Allen, Philos- ophy for Understanding Theology (Atlanta: 121 See ibid., Appendix 1, p. 89-91; p. 155- John Knox Press, 1985), p. 261; Solomon, 156. Since 1750, p. 135- 122 Ibid., p. 154-155. 136; Wolfgang Stegmüller, Corrientes fun- 123 Ibid., p. 155. damentales de la filosofía actual, with a 124 Ibid., p. 155-156. foreword by Eugenio Pucciarelli (Buenos Aires: Editorial Nova, 1967), chap. II, 4 (p. 125 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 156. 117-122); Michele Federico Sciacca, La fi- 126 Ibid., p. 157. losofía, hoy: De los orígenes románticos de

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 132 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______

127 Ibid., p. 161. Zubiri claims that these 148 See Cooper, Panentheism-The Other God of predicates could be valid for any God, and the Philosophers, “Basic Terms and Dis- not only for the Christian God. tinctions in Panentheism”, in Chapter I, 128 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 161. pp. 26-30. 129 Ibid., p. 161. 149 Cooper, Panentheism-The Other God of the Philosophers, chapter 5, p. 121-122. 130 Ibid., p. 162. 150 Marías, Historia de la Filosofía, p. 325; 131 Ibid., p. 165. other similar statements at “Krause (Karl 132 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 166; emphasis Christian Friedrich)” in Ferrater Mora, of the author of this paper. Diccionario de filosofía, vol I, p. 1065- 133 Ibid., p. 168. 1066; Copleston, A History of Philosophy, 134 Ibid., p. 168. vol. 7, p. 146-147; and especially the Spanish philosophy appendix to 135 Ibid., p. 169. Hirschberger, Historia de la Filosofía, vol. 136 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 170. II, p. 489-492. 137 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 172. 151 See Aubert, “Modernism.” 138 Ibid., p. 173. 152 Corominas, “Xavier Zubiri y la crisis mo- 139 Ibid., p. 173. dernista,” p. 18. 140 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 175. 153 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 455. 141 Ibid., p. 176. 154 For example see Fowler, “Introduction to the Philosophy of Xavier Zubiri,” p. 6: 142 Ibid., p. 176. “[Zubiri] rejects the traditional notion of 143 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 177; emphasis God as a reality object, instead conceiving from the author of this paper. of Him as a reality fundament or ground” 144 See for example Zubiri, Naturaleza, Histo- (Emphasis of the author of this paper). ria, Dios, p. 443. Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, 155 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 492- p. 149. 493, 497. 145 See, for example Zubiri, Naturaleza, Histo- 156 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 493. ria, Dios, p. 443, 493, 496; Zubiri, El 157 See Cooper, Panentheism-The Other God of hombre y Dios, p. 175-176. the Philosophers, p. 29. 146 Antonio González, “La novedad teológica 158 However, see Juan Alejandro Navarrete de la filosofía de Zubiri,” Revista Latinoa- Cano, “Materiales para la elaboración de mericana de Teología 10, no. 30 (1993): p. una teología de la creación desde Zubiri: 255; for a similar statement see Jesús Análisis de un párrafo del libro “El pro- Sáez Cruz, “La causalidad personal: una blema teologal del hombre: Cristianismo”,” propuesta zubiriana en diálogo con Mario Revista realidad, no. 112 (2007): 247-257, Bunge, parte II,” The Xavier Zubiri Review who tends towards the necessity of the 11 (2009): p 78. world from what Zubiri wrote in The Theo- 147 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 141; see also logical Problem of Man: Christianity. Hernanz Moral, “La constitución del orden transcendental en la metafísica de Xavier Zubiri.”

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015