Dialogue among Religions: For Harmonious and Meaningful Future

Jnanadeepa: Pune Journal of Religious Studies 25/4 Oct-Dec 2021, ISSN P-0972-3331 | E-2582-8711 │104-128 www.punejournal.in │DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5117981 Stable URL: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5117981 Dialogue among Religions: For Harmonious and Meaningful Future Clement Valluvassery Pontifical Institute of Theology and Philosophy, Alwaye (PIA), Kerala Abstract: This article takes up some scattered thoughts on interreligious dialogue. At the outset the article rushes through various stand-positions of the Catholic Church with regard to other religions pointing to the paradigm shift taken place with Vatican II. The different basic dispositions in the pluri-religious context such as exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism and ‘perichoresis’ are critically evaluated. It reminds all that dialogue is a method of apostolate and emphasizes the importance of dialogue, especially in the Indian situation. It is pointed out that the dialogues among the religions are possible at different levels such as at ‘official dais’, at ‘everyday life’, at ‘prayer services’ and at ‘cooperation for justice and peace’ and the criteria cannot be the same at all levels. The article is wound up with certain concluding remarks, above all underscoring the apophatic dimension of the divine which leads all to humility and openness. Keywords: Inter-religious Dialogue, Pluri-religious Context Models and Levels of Inter-religious Dialogue Dialogue-a Method of Apostolate –Inter-religious Dialogue. Cite as: Valluvassery, Clement. (2021). Dialogue among Religions: For Harmonious and Meaningful Future (Version 1.0). Jnanadeepa: Pune Journal of Religious Studies, Oct-Dec 2021(25/4), 104-128. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5117981. 104 C. Valluvassery: Inter-Religious Dialogue Overture Till the discovery of “the new world” happed through the adventurous voyage of Portuguese navigators in the beginning of the 15th century, most of the Christians thought, the world was Christian with an exception of “the vicious Muslims.” During this period of time there was no serious and formal efforts for an encounter between Christianity and other religions. Vatican II was the first council in the ecclesial history that took expressively a standpoint with regard to other religions. Originally, even at that time there was no intention to express such statements. A declaration with regard to the relationship with Judaism, that too only with regard to the standpoint of the Church, was in the plan. Yet the discussions and deliberations occurred in the council and requests from circles outside the council led to the elaboration of the topic, which emerged as Nostra Aetate, the document on the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions.1 Besides this declaration on non-Christian religions, the Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity-Ad Gentes - makes deliberations in this direction. The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World-Gaudium et Spes, the Declaration on Religious Liberty-Dignitatis Humanae and Dogmatic Constitution of the Church-Lumen Gentium handle the above mentioned theme in one way or other at least indirectly. In this sense the Council is not only aware of the existence of non-Christian religions, but also has made several attempts to look at this reality from different perspectives. This is very clear if we compare some teachings of the Church in Vatican I or those just before Vatican II with the documents of Vatican II. In 1854, in his sermon Singulari quadam Pius IX stated: It must, of course, be held as of faith that no one can be saved outside the apostolic Roman Church, that the 1 Cf. Introduction to Nostra Aetate. Jnanadeepa: PJRS 25/4 Oct-Dec 2021 105 Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. Yet, on the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord (ND 1010). In Vatican II, however, we notice a different basic disposition. Lumen Gentium states: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their action to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation (LG 16). The declaration on Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, not only acknowledges the importance of the dialogue among world religions but also speak of the other faiths in positive terms: The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She looks with sincere respect upon those ways of conduct and of life, those rules and teaching which, though differing in many particulars from what she holds and sets forth, nevertheless reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men (NA 2). The standpoint revealed in these statements surely indicates a paradigm shift in the history of the Church. A Glance to the History Karl Marx wrote in ‘The Communist Manifesto,’ “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Even those who do not subscribe to the Marxian understanding of history and society find an element of truth in the above sweeping statement. In this line, from a particular perspective one can say that the history of humankind has been in a way to a great extent the struggle of 106 C. Valluvassery: Inter-Religious Dialogue some to dominate over others. I think, this averment is true to a great measure when we look into the history of religions and societies. Christianity was persecuted in its early centuries. However, once it was accepted as the official religion of the Roman empire, the situation changed in manifold perspectives. The struggle for domination by the religion or the secular world over the other is seen almost in all parts of the world in different phases of history. Religion and secularism often moved ahead in hostility, though certain temporal peace treaties and attempts for reconciliation can be pointed out here and there. I look at the present crisis and conflicts that exist between the religion and the secular outlook, both in India and elsewhere, as the continuation of the age-old struggle and the fights for domination. Wherever there is domination, though apparent peaceful atmosphere may artificially be created for some time, it can never provide sustainable peace and harmony. Mutual respect rooted in one’s own conviction which is not unawareness of the experiential and linguistic limitations, especially in dealing with the ultimate questions, can truly contribute to an atmosphere of genuine dialogue, peace and harmony. Decades back there was difference in the understanding about secularism in the western world and in India. In the western world the expression secularism means an inherent hostility to religion. In India secularism was not understood in terms of hostility against the religion at least during the formulation of Indian constitution, but as an openness to all religions without favouring any religion in particular. I think in the recent past as the broad understanding about Hinduism is being manipulated and narrowed as Hindutva, the common Indian understanding gets blended with the western understanding to a great extent, though there are still some who cherish the former insight and stand and speak for the same. It is only knowing and understanding that can lead to lasting and sustainable harmony and peace, not any refined strategies for the old game. In the game for dominance, in fact there is no lasting winner 107 Jnanadeepa: PJRS 25/4 Oct-Dec 2021 and loser, but only sporadic intervals of violence. Such intervals need not be misunderstood as peace and harmony. Dialogue as a Method of Apostolate The capability for reciprocal communication even of complex ideas differentiate human beings from other animals. Dialogue is surely a means for knowing and understanding and so it is a way to true peace and harmony. Dialogue could be understood in manifold ways: At purely human level it is reciprocal communication which can lead to common goal or to interpersonal communion; in the context of religious plurality it can mean - all positive and constructive interreligious relations with individuals and communities of other faiths which are directed at mutual understanding and enrichment in obedience to truth and respect for freedom. Witnessing one’s own faith and exploring the religious convictions of the dialogue-partner in whole sincerity, not as a strategy, are parts of it. The encyclical letter “Ecclesiam Suam” sees dialogue as a recognized method of apostolate and as a way of making spiritual contact.2 Thus, in the spirit of Vatican II, dialogue promotes better understanding and collaboration between Christians and the followers of different religious traditions. It paves the way for special attention to disciplinary formation in religious studies and encourages the emergence of persons committed to it. The mission as a participation in the mission of the triune God can only proceed nowadays in dialogue and can only be conducted in humility, where human intellectual independence and autonomy are achieved and appreciated to a great extent. Indian Situation In Indian context the encounter with religions is not something, which takes place on the formal dais alone, but it belongs still to the day-to-day life of a common man. When Christianity speaks of its 2 Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter – Eccesiam Suam, August 6, 1964, n. 81. 108 C. Valluvassery: Inter-Religious Dialogue uniqueness and singular revelation took place in Jesus Christ and endorses the entry into the Church instituted by him, the traditional Hinduism leaves all religions to be what they are, namely the different ways, to arrive at the absolute mystery. Christianity is not a bare religion of philosophical certainties, on the contrary an engagement for the person of Jesus Christ, whom Christians proclaim as the Lord and master of this world. So dialogue is a matter of Christian interest. In this context one needs to approach the dialogue partner in genuine respect and modesty, not in an air of “big-brother” mentality. The Basic Disposition Required In the pluri-religious context one’s basic disposition with regard to other religions can be generally categorized as exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism. Let me explain very briefly of these three possibilities. Exclusivism Those who have the disposition of exclusivism operate on the conviction that they have the monopoly of truth. When a tradition claims to have all the truth for all time, anything which goes against this “truth” should be false. Prior to Vatican II the Church fostered this disposition. This disposition has both advantages and disadvantages or positive and negative sides. The positive side of it is that it gives new energy, enthusiasm and a “security feeling” in all what one does and speaks. The danger of it is the intolerance, pride, closeness and contempt for those of other faiths. One tries to bring others of different convictions to his or her conviction even using violence. The history provides us with enumerable examples for the same. Inclusivism Inclusivism is an attempt to solve the problems which emerge from the disposition of exclusivism. Each one can follow his or her own way. No one needs to condemn other ways and possibilities. One Jnanadeepa: PJRS 25/4 Oct-Dec 2021 109 can even foster relation with those who have different convictions, provided that he experiences all what is to be known or to be understood or to be loved or to be lived is already present in his or her tradition. One can be at peace with oneself and others. This is an intelligent disposition. Because it provides the space for one to be faithful to one’s own tradition and at the same time to be open and universal. Basically this is the official position of the Church since Vatican II. But this position is not totally free of problems. A neutral observer sees elements of arrogance and megalomania in this position. The thoughts behind such a disposition are the following, “Only I have the privilege of a comprehensive understanding and the ability for tolerance; only I can assign the proper positions for others, for ‘my tradition’ or ‘my truth’ is better and higher than all others. Though this disposition, on the one hand reconciles with the fact of pluriformal understandings and expressions of ‘religious truths’ and provides the space of relationship with them, on the other hand fails to recognize the independent intellectual content of the truth, for truth is one for the theists, another for atheists, or for Islam or for Buddhism. Since there are many opposing teachings depending upon the basic outlook of each religion, which has a horizon of its own mythos, erudition in one’s outlook cannot be criterion of truth for all. Pluralism Anyone who takes the experiential reality as it is without any manipulation and cherishes the intellectual honesty, cannot but see the gap between the ideal proclaimed and the reality lived. This gap is true with regard to all religions for they are lived and proclaimed by imperfect human beings. Where there is awareness that my religion as it is lived is not totally identical with the ideals preached, but still remains the symbol of the right paths and those with other faiths also can have the similar convictions, though there are shortcomings at the existential level like mine, one may neither 110 C. Valluvassery: Inter-Religious Dialogue simply reject the religious claims of others nor see all what is good in other traditions as already present in my own tradition. In such a situation the one option remains, is, is the third category of disposition, namely pluralism, which sees that different religions, in spite of all the shortcomings at the existential level, as parallel possibilities, which lead to the ultimate goal of human beings. One’s duty and responsibility that emerge from such a disposition is not to disturb others and never try to convert others to my convictions and my ways. On the contrary each one should deepen oneself in his or her own tradition so that an encounter takes place at the end at the deepest level where there is the least dichotomy between what is preached and what is lived. In other words, be a better Christian, a better Marxist, a better Hindu and in that process you would surely experience some common paths where others of different faiths also travel. This disposition has many advantages at the practical level, but also difficulties. It provides space for tolerance and respect for others who profess different faiths. It avoids syncretism and eclecticism. The problem with this disposition is that it makes the haste conclusion that all traditions carry the inner strength for growth and maturity. It does not see the advantages of mutual learning and thus closes the possibility for newness and widening of one’s own horizon. Perichoresis In the present situation where we see through the merits and limitations of these different standpoints, we should go for a fourth basic disposition, which would resemble perichoresis or circumincession.3 Meeting with different world-religions is indeed 3 Perichoresis is derived from the Greek peri “around” and chorea, which refers to “a dance, especially the round dance with its music”. Perichoresis is a term referring to the relationship of the three persons of the triune God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) to one another. The Latin expression circumincession is derived from the Latin circum, “around” and incedere Jnanadeepa: PJRS 25/4 Oct-Dec 2021 111 a great enrichment and in the process we may realize that the faith and practice of our neighbours different from ours not only places our faith and practices in question but also can be an opportunity for deepening of our understanding about our own faith and practices. It can make us opener to see other religions in their complimentary and enriching aspects and perhaps even enable us to seek answers to certain particular open-questions of our faith in the religion of our neighbours provided we hold the religiosity of our own faith intact. This happens in the concrete encounter in life. A total exchange takes place in communio, not in argumentative and verbal communication. Religions exist not in total isolation in the vacuum, but in the mutual “Ich-Du” relationship4 like day and night. meaning “to go, to step, to march along” and used for the same concept. Modern authors extend the original usage as an analogy to cover other interpersonal relationships. The term “co-inherence” is sometimes used as a synonym. Since humans are made in the image of God, a Christian understanding of an adequate anthropology of humans’ social relations is informed by the divine attributes, what can be known of God‘s activity and God’s presence in human affairs. Theologians such as Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac, and Joseph Ratzinger locate the reciprocal dynamism between God and God’s creatures in the liturgical action of sacrament, celebrating the sacred mysteries in Eucharistic communion, in a hermeneutic of continuity and apostolic unity. 4 Ich-Du (“I-Thou” or “I-You”) is a relationship that stresses the mutual, holistic existence of two beings. It is a concrete encounter, because these beings meet one another in their authentic existence, without any qualification or objectification of one another. Even imagination and ideas do not play a role in this relation. In an ‘I–Thou’ encounter, infinity and universality are made actual (rather than being merely concepts). Martin Buber stressed that an Ich-Du relationship lacks any composition (e. g., structure) and communicates no content (e. g., information). Despite the fact that Ich-Du cannot be proven to happen as an event (e. g., it cannot be measured), Buber stressed that it is real and perceivable. A variety of examples are used to illustrate Ich-Du relationships in daily life—two lovers, an observer and a cat, the author and a tree, and two strangers on a train. Common English words used to describe the Ich-Du relationship include encounter, meeting, dialogue, mutuality, and exchange. 112 C. Valluvassery: Inter-Religious Dialogue My own religiosity reveals its full meaning only in relation to the religiosity of the other. Therefore, the relationship of the religions to each other is to be seen neither as exclusivism (my standpoint alone is true) nor as inclusivism (all other standpoints through mine) nor as pluralism (all strive independent from each other for the same goal), on the contrary as pericherosis or cicumincessio sui generis, that is, the mutual penetration taking place without distorting or destroying the other and without getting distorted or destroyed by the other.5 The positive sides of this basic disposition are tolerance, openness, big-heartedness and mutual trust. Since there is mutual encouragement and demand, no religion is totally alien to the other. We all need each other. This total encounter can complement each other and set certain aspects in the right order. The biggest challenge here is to answer two basic questions: Who does guarantee the mutual penetration in the right sense? What is the basis of such a disposition? Searching into the creative role of hermeneutics and establishing the same might lead to the right answers to these questions, opines Raymon Panikkar.6 He proposes diatopical hermeneutics for intercultural communication.7 5 Cf. R. Panikkar, Der neue religioese Weg, 27. Cf. Ibid. 7 Diatopical hermeneutics stands for the thematic consideration of understanding the other without assuming that the other has the same basic selfunderstanding. The ultimate human horizon, and not only differing contexts, is at stake here. Diatopical hermeneutics is a hermeneutic that goes beyond traditional morphological hermeneutics and diachronical hermeneutics, inasmuch as it “takes as its point of departure the awareness that the “topoi,” locations within distinct cultures, cannot be understood with the tools of understanding from only one tradition or culture.” Morphological hermeneutics deciphers the treasures (morphe, forms, values) of a particular culture, a single tradition. Diachronical hermeneutics represents mediation between temporally distant eras in the cultural history of humanity, but still, normally, with reference to a single tradition. 6 Jnanadeepa: PJRS 25/4 Oct-Dec 2021 113 Religious identity is not a party membership, that is, not a part of the whole, but fidelity to the wholeness of one’s being, which at the same time related to the whole. Each religion resembles a language. Just as there are non-translational expressions in a language there are elements in religions, which cannot be translated without losing the nuances of what is stated. So there is a need to understand a religion from within. The issues, which require clarification for understanding, are not only of a purely intellectual character. They are also of a political nature and depend upon economic factors and psychological reactions. The history with its aftereffects of colonialism, exploitation, mistrust, deceit and fights from all sides cannot be abolished overnight. Religions are more than intellectual constructs. These points are to be taken into consideration so that the interreligious dialogue becomes a genuine dialogue without being reduced to a refined strategy. In Redemptoris missio John Paul II reminds all that interreligious dialogue is part of the Church’s evangelizing mission. By dialogue what is meant here is a process of mutual instruction and enlightenment. True interfaith-dialogue is the result of deep respect for all that the Spirit has wrought in the various religions. Through dialogue the Church seeks to uncover and cultivate the “seeds of the word” and the rays of truth that are to be found among all peoples and in all religious traditions. Doctrinal compromises are surely to be avoided. Because without being rooted in one’s own religious traditions and convictions true inter-religious dialogue will not be Seeking, among other things, to break out of the hermeneutic circle created by the limits of a single culture, diatopical hermeneutics attempts “to bring into contact radically different human horizons,” traditions, or cultural locations (topoi) in order to achieve a true dialogical dialogue that bears in mind cultural differences. It is the art of arriving at understanding “by going through these different locations” (dia-topos). To achieve this, there must be a renewed encounter between mythos and logos, between subjectivity and objectivity, the heart and the mind, rational thought and the spirit that flies free breaking all rigid mental schemes. 114 C. Valluvassery: Inter-Religious Dialogue possible.8 Only a religious person will be able to understand the nuances of what is said by another person of different faith, just as it is said only a jnani can recognize another jnani. One has definitely to strip off the “big-brother mentality” to have a proper encounter. The Various Levels of Inter-Religious Dialogue The inter-religious dialogue can take place at least at four levels: a) at the level of official dais b) at the level of day today life c) at the level of prayer d) at the level of cooperation for peace and justice. This distinction indicates that there are differences in the process and procedure involved at each level. One need not be well-versed at all levels, but one needs to be aware of such varied possibilities to be open to the prompting of the Holy Spirit. At the Level of Official Dais Considering the Indian context and the history of Indian theology, I think, the inter-religious dialogue at the official level can take place in three ways. These three ways correspond three directions or contexts one observes in Indian theology. In other words, the various theological endeavours in India could be classified into three categories, namely a) Religious-cultural context b) Spiritualcontemplative context and c) Socio-political context. Let me comment on these three contexts very briefly for clarity sake. Theology in Religious-Cultural Context The separation between religion and culture is extremely difficult in Indian context, since they have grown and developed intertwined for thousands of years. The expressions like Ashram, Guru, Sannyasi etc. are familiar to every Indian like the lines on the palm, though these expressions emerged in Hindu-religious milieu.9 They remind us of search of the Indian spirit for millions of years for the absolute and mark the important aspects of Indian religious and intellectual legacy. We can say that the Indian culture has greatly 8 9 Cf. RM 56. Cf. C. Valluvassery, Christus im Kontext und Kontext in Christus, 95. Jnanadeepa: PJRS 25/4 Oct-Dec 2021 115 been influenced by the Sannyasis, who in their passion for the absolute and the eternal left everything and the seers (rishis) and the saints, and displays the same in very subtle ways and otherwise.10 This spirit is still actual today in the Indian life. S. Radhakrishnan, a renowned Indian philosopher, writes of it so pointed: From the beginning of her history India has adored and idealized, not soldiers and statesmen, not men of science or leaders of industry, not even poets and philosophers, who influence the world by their deeds or by their words, but those rarer and more chastened spirits, whose greatness lies in what they are and not in what they do; men who have stamped infinity on the thought and life of the country, men who have added to the invisible forces of goodness in the world. To a world given over to the pursuit of power and pleasure, wealth and glory, they declare the reality of the unseen world and the call of the spiritual life. Their selfpossession and self-command, their strange deep wisdom, their exquisite courtesy, their humility and greatness of soul, their abounding humanity, proclaim that the destiny of man is to know himself and thereby further the universal life of which he is an integral element. This ideal has dominated the Indian religious landscape for over forty centuries.11 The fact that emperors and kings and other leaders with bare foot and great respect have called on Sannyasis and Rishis in their Ashrams to receive blessing and pieces of advice, is not something of the remote past in India. The same is continued still by the politicians and others who adorn responsible and leading positions in society in India. I do not want to idealize this situation. There are, of course, pseudo-Sannyasis and corrupt politicians and religious 10 Cf. F. Wilfred & M. M. Thomas, Theologiegeschichte der Dritten Welt. Indien, 182. 11 S. Radhakrishnan, Eastern Religions and Western Thought, 35. 116 C. Valluvassery: Inter-Religious Dialogue leaders who commercialize religion and “god”. But it is an undeniable fact that the lifestyle of Sannyasis and the context and culture of Ashram are still alive and influential in Indian societies today. Therefore, the theology in India cannot but remain untouched by these sources of Indian life and thinking pattern. This is applicable for inter-religious dialogues too. The theology in the religious-cultural or ashramic context is above all stamped by advaitic (non-dualistic) outlook. Inter-religious dialogue in the religio-context cannot overlook the advaitic tradition which reached philosophical peak through the interpretations of Sankara.12 Theology in Spiritual-Contemplative Context Theology in spiritual-contemplative context is not totally apart from the theology in religio-cultural context. The difference is mainly on the emphasis. Whereas the theology in religio-cultural context makes use of the philosophical legacy spread over the Upanishads and Advaitic Tradition, the theology in spiritual-context places the focus on the intuitive and mystical aspects of the religious experiences. Jules Monchanin (Param-Arubi-Anandam 18951957), Henri Le Saux (Swami Abhishiktananda, 1910-1973), Bede Greffiths (Swami Dayananda, 1906-1993) etc. have been the pioneers in this direction. The gist of theological thinking here is the following: The real point of meeting of religions (meeting between Christianity and Hinduism, in Indian context) must be in the mystical experience. Hinduism seeks to know God to experience the reality of God in the depths of the soul. It is at this level that Hindus 12 Sankara was an Indian philosopher and theologian, lived in 8th century, who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta unifying and establishing the main currents of thought in Hinduism. His works in Sanskrit discuss the unity of the Atman and Nirguna Brahman, “brahman without attributes”. He wrote copious commentaries on the Vedic canon (Brahma Sutras, Principal Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita) in support of his thesis. His works elaborate on ideas found in the Upanishads. Jnanadeepa: PJRS 25/4 Oct-Dec 2021 117 and Christians have to meet so that they can find out what they have in common and where the real difference lies. It is in this union with God – behind images and concepts – in the ground of the soul that true meeting must take place. The Christian monk assumes all the classical spiritual paths of India, namely niskamakarma, bhakti and jnana and consequently works out a spiritual theological synthesis of them all. Thus a way for the true dialogue with Hinduism is paved.13 Dialogue is readiness to listen to the other as other. It is more than just stopping the talking; it demands inner silence that enables one to understand the other as he or she understands himself or herself; it is a “putting into brackets” one’s own conviction. In the real dialogue the moment will occur when the listener speaks, not the prefabricated answer, but the word to the partner who has been understood. This is a different dimension of dialogue. Theology in the Socio-Political Context Theology in the socio-political context is a later development. The growing awareness about the injustice prevailing in the society coupled with the realisation that the salvation provided by our Lord Jesus Christ is not totally otherworldly, but is to be realised here and now paved the way for the theology in the socio-political context. The insight that there are not only unjust incidents and actions, but also unjust structures which beget and multiply unjust realities functioned as the catalyst for the development of theology in sociopolitical context. In 1947 India became independent. The concentration in the years followed it was on the strengthening of the unity of the nation and the democratic social life and the improvement of economic realities. The Christian response during this time was intensifying of the social help and development projects. The time immediately 13 Cf. J. G. Weber, ed., In Quest of the Absolute, Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications and London: Mowbrays, 1976; Abhishiktananda, HinduChristian Meeting Point within the Cave of the Heart, Delhi, 1976. 118 C. Valluvassery: Inter-Religious Dialogue after the independence was predominantly a time of euphoria. Meanwhile many got rid of the dreamlike optimism about the immediate post-independence era. A small elite group from the homeland, that was brought up, educated and trained during the colonial period according to the vision and mentality for the colonial power, could easily assume the power in the society and the oppression and the injustice remained in everyday life without any change. What practically changed was only the colour of the oppressor: the gap between ‘the have’ and ‘the have not’ was further widened and the percentage of those who had to live in the existence-minimum, in hunger and poverty, became higher. The situation slowly gave birth to various liberation movements with varied characters. Dalits-movement, the mobilisation of outcastes etc. are just to name a few. In Kerala, the leadership of Sri Narayana Guru played a vital role in the socio-religious uplift of the Ezhava community, that was discriminated in many ways. In Kerala context, the social analysis of Marxism was also of great support in exposing the unjust social structure and it inspired many to dream of a just and equal society. In short, we can say that at the beginning almost all liberationmovements for social and economic uplift of the downtrodden emerged independent of any ecclesial encouragement and but it paved the way for retrospection on the role and responsibility of the Church. Gradually emerged also ecclesial movements, which stood for social justice and equality. The initiative for the same came up from a small group of Christians who joined hand with those who belonged to other religions and ideologies for social transformation. Thus began liberation movements which stood for the uplift of Adivasis in North India and the fisher-folk in Kerala, where the involvement of priests and the religious were conspicuous and vital. In this context emerged a row of theologians who inspired on the one hand the activists to intensify their fight for social justice and on the other hand who began to theologically articulate the happenings at the basis level. To this group belong theologians like Jnanadeepa: PJRS 25/4 Oct-Dec 2021 119 Samuel Rayan (1920-2019), Sebastian Kappen (1924-1993), Soares Prabhu (1929-1995) etc. Interreligious dialogue in this context will have surely different tone and colour from what was said above about the other two contexts. At the Level of Everyday Life In Indian context the inter-religious dialogue takes place undoubtedly at the level of day-to-day life. This is because Christianity is a minority in India and the Christians are mingling with persons of other beliefs at various levels of societal life. It could be at the workplace, it could be at the social engagement, it could be during a travel, it could be at the bus stop, railway station or at the airport. The list can be enlarged easily, for the plurireligious context is part of Indian life. Knowingly or unknowingly an Indian Christian enters into an intra-religious dialogue as he mingles with persons of other beliefs in his day-to-day life. Because the lives of certain persons of different faith with whom he regularly or rarely interacts edify him at times in a more comprehensive manner than the so called “saints” within his own religion. One of the reasons could be, as the old saying goes, the fact that familiarity breeds contempt. Surely there are saintly persons who profess a different faith than Christianity, live a life more “Christian” than many of the ‘Sunday Christians.’14 Mahatma Gandhi is a classic example for such occurrence. He once happened to have said, “I believe in Christ, but not in Christians.” What made him say so was undoubtedly the gap between what is proclaimed and what is lived. Pope Paul VI formulated it pointedly as he said, “Modern man listens more willingly to witnesses than to teachers, if he does listens to teachers, 14 What I mean here is the fact that there are many Christians on the paper - in the sense that they are once baptized and there is record of the same in their respective parishes - they visit the Church once in a while or participate in the Sunday Mass, but whose lives are totally alien from the Christian values and message of love, hope and faith. 120 C. Valluvassery: Inter-Religious Dialogue it is because they are witnesses.”15 It is a matter of fact we come across in our life persons who do not profess Christian faith, but live much more as “Christian” than the so called Christians, on whose head once the baptismal water was poured and whose names are in baptism register book. It may lead one to the realisation that the so called Christian virtues are not the monopoly of the Christians.16 When I pen these lines, pictures of many non-Christians who edified me in my short-span of life, with their words and deeds concretely occur to my mind. Such an experience provides one a completely different disposition and platform in the inter-religious dialogue. At the Level of Prayer The conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman narrated in the Gospel of John (4:1-26) sheds light on certain insights on prayer. Jesus tells the Samaritan woman, “Yet a time is coming and has now come when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks.” 15 16 Evangelii nuntiandi, 41. To make an interreligious dialogue a real dialogue where genuine ‘give and take’ takes place, a Christian should accept the reality in all modesty: a) A Christian does not have the monopoly of the ethical quality, neither at the natural nor at the supernatural levels. Even that which are at time called as specific Christian moral teachings such as all-embracing love and love of enemies, returning blessing against a curse and acknowledging the human dignity of all everywhere etc. can be seen in other religions too, almost in the same wording, perhaps five hundred years before Christ. b) The fact of God choosing a particular people for a particular purpose does not indicate the rejection of others. c) A Christian cannot have also a monopoly of salvation. If we take seriously the voice of our conscience, the light of our reason and the Christian teaching about God’s will of universal salvation, then we cannot doubt that the salvation is offered to everyone in the world. We can’t actually speak of ‘ordinary’ or ‘extraordinary’ paths of salvation since criteria for such a discussion lack. Neither the number nor the quality nor any other possibility with regard to the personal salvation or redemption is revealed to us. Christ himself has turned back such a question brimming with ungrounded confidence and claim. Jnanadeepa: PJRS 25/4 Oct-Dec 2021 121 The exegetes aver that what Jesus refers here are not something abstract, but the truth he reveals and the Holy Spirit he gives. Holy Spirit, as the breath of divine life, makes itself felt in prayer. Pope John Paul II states, “Wherever people are praying in the world, there the Holy Spirit is, the living breath of prayers.”17 It is this realisation that prompted Pope John Paul II to organize two important summits of prayer for members of all religions at Assisi. For some ardent Christians this gesture of Pope John Paul II was not fully digestive. As Pope John Paul II addressed the Roman curia on October 22, 1987, he not only reflected on the Assisi day of prayer for peace which took place on October 27, 1986, but also referring to the letter to the Romans Chapter 8, verses 26 and 27 he stated, “We can indeed maintain that every authentic prayer is called forth by the Holy Spirit, who is mysteriously present in the heart of every person.” In praying one submits totally to God and recognizes one’s own poverty in relation to him. Prayer is therefore an important means of realizing God’s plan for humanity.18 At the Level of Cooperation for Justice and Peace The combined endeavours for justice and peace undoubtedly provide a platform for the meeting of different religions. Various religions can surely play a preeminent role in preserving peace and in building a space and place worthy of human being. Religions, worthy of the name, inherently contain an openness and submission to the transcendental will of the absolute. The spiritual vision they foster of human being make them capable of respecting fundamental human rights. Thus a religious and ethical vision can overcome the instincts of aggression and xenophobia and avert the tendency to violence and terrorism. Surely one has to distinguish between the perennial values a religion upholds and the external observances and practices, which are supposed to be guided by those values. 17 18 Dominum et vivificantem, 65. John Paul II, Address to the Roman Curia; Origins 16 (Jan 15, 1987): 561-563, at 563. 122 C. Valluvassery: Inter-Religious Dialogue Whenever those practices and observances deviate from the values owing to the human limitedness, they are to be continuously corrected, refined, updated and maintained. The power for the same is inherent in all authentic religions and such a realisation opens us the possibility for cooperation with other faiths for justice and peace. Some Concluding Remarks The different levels and contexts of interreligious-dialogue - actual, required and possible, elaborated above - reveal that we cannot have fixed, ready-made and perennial pattern for interreligious dialogue. We have to be open to the prompting of the Holy Spirit in each concrete context. The existence of various religions and their insights and focuses cannot be outside the plan of God. The declaration of Vatican II on the Relation of the Church to the Non-Christian Religions states: The Church, therefore, urges her sons to enter with prudence and charity into discussion and collaboration with members of other religions. Let Christians, while witnessing to their own faith and way of life acknowledge, preserve and encourage the spiritual and moral truths found among non-Christians, also their social life and culture (NA 2). The different levels and contexts possible for inter-religious dialogue, indicate the fact all cannot be experts at all levels and contexts. Human beings are different not only in appearance, physical, intellectual and emotional capacities but also in preunderstanding, thinking-pattern, perception and in the myths and logos (Valluvassery, 2001: 129). they cherish. So the unity that we all aspire for need not be uniformity and monolithic. In this vast universe and in the long history of the Church we all have only a limited role to play, on account of limited span of life and our existential facts which are limited in time and space. So perennial formulae of interreligious dialogue for all time and all contexts 123 Jnanadeepa: PJRS 25/4 Oct-Dec 2021 cannot be created based on any particular time and space. If we are convinced that our existence now on this earth is not outside the divine providence, we need not be too much worried of the future. We all are just instruments in the hands of God. As being endowed with intellect and will we are to apply our mind and cooperate with the prompting of the Holy Spirit. In his speech delivered on December 11, 1962 opening Vatican II, Pope John XXIII said, “The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.” These words have meaning in the context of interreligious dialogue too. Considering the complex, manifold and pluri-religious situation of India Samuel Rayan proposed the order of an Indian Christology as follows: a) to start with the indwelling Christ who is my rest, best and deepest self and b) to proceed to the Christ who is in all and is the Self of all, the Universal Self and the Antaryamin; and c) to go to the new community which experiences Christ as indwelling and loving, and shares in his personal experience; and d) finally to see that his experience was an experience of being wholly from God and for God, and of being born of God; of belonging to the world of sin and death and of God’s redemptive action which raises the dead and calls into existence that which is not. Here, in the historical Jesus, with his awareness of the indwelling Father as his best Self, the circuit is complete.19 In the interreligious dialogue, the starting point need not be always the same. The starting point can vary as per the context. We have a great paragon of it in the Areopagus sermon of St Paul recounted in Acts 17: 16-34: Paul had encountered conflicts as a result of his preaching in Thessalonica and Berea in northern Greece and had been carried to Athens as a place of safety. While he was waiting 19 S. Rayan, An Indian Christology: A Discussion of Method, in: JD 1 (1971), 213. 124 C. Valluvassery: Inter-Religious Dialogue for his companions Silas and Timothy to arrive, Paul went to the synagogue and the Agora (marketplace) to preach about the Resurrection of Jesus. Some Greeks then took him to a meeting at the Areopagus, the high court in Athens, to explain himself. There Paul begins his address saying, “As I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.” St Paul begins where his listeners stand. He even quotes some of the poets over there that we are his offspring (Cf. Acts 17:28). This very words and deeds of St Paul makes clear that the starting point need not be always the same. In the similar manner we should also be able to use our intellect and imagination to launch the dialogue with our neighbour of another faith. The starting point is to be passing to the context, not prefabricated notions and thinking pattern. Total openness is necessary for a real dialogue. The willingness to learn from each other is the first and foremost prerequisite for a true dialogue. It is always a hindrance when one or both partners claim to possess the absolute truth, because through such a claim the vacuum required to receive something new is stolen away and that which is already full, cannot receive anything more. In the context of interreligious dialogue with Hinduism or Buddhism or any religion belongs to the category of gnostic religions we cannot have the same trajectory as when we have dialogue with Judaism or Islam, which belong to the group of prophetic religions, for here a common theological language is still to be developed. For a mind which is trained in the western thinking pattern, which operates on the principle of non-contradiction, the biggest problem is the question on the ‘uniqueness of Christ.’ How is this to be maintained, when we speak of a total or radical openness to be safeguarded to enable a truthful dialogue, which is never to be deteriorated as a diplomatic strategy hiding the sublime superiority complex? Jnanadeepa: PJRS 25/4 Oct-Dec 2021 125 According to R. Panikkar the question regarding ‘the safeguarding of the uniqueness of Christ’ is a pseudo-problem, which started since the loss of corporate identity (ecclesial in this case) and crystallised as a problem since modern science became the paradigm of intelligibility. It is love that entails the uniqueness of something or somebody. The scientific world is a loveless universe. Science approaches things in an impersonal and quantifiable manner. But we should not forget the fact that modern science is not the only paradigm of knowledge. The question of the uniqueness of Christ appears as a problem once we approach Christ without love, i.e., “scientifically”. We try to find his identification and not to discover his identity when love is absent. Love is not an acknowledged epistemological tool and epistemology is basically served from ontology. That result the split between the intellect and the spirit, between intellectual life and spiritual life. My statement that my mother is the most loving person in the world does not prevent or deny the space for my dialogue partner to state that his or her mother is the most loving person in the world. If this is true, then where is the problem? Words and formulations are needed and important, but they cannot substitute life-witnessing or proclamation at the existential level. As Pope Francis states, Christianity should grow by attraction. It is not a product to be sold, but a way of life that embraces all without any prejudice or pre-calculation, for God has revealed himself as one who participates in the smiles and tears of human being in the wordincarnate, Jesus Christ. Herein lies the universality and uniqueness of Christian message. Besides, the awareness on the apophatic dimension of the divine leads us to humility and openness. 126 C. Valluvassery: Inter-Religious Dialogue References Abhishiktananda: 21976, Hindu-Christian Meeting Point. Within the Cave of the Heart. Delhi. Acharuparambil, Daniel: 2010, Hindu Spirituality-Christian Insights. Trivandrum. Cloony, Francis X: 1993, Theology after Vedanta. An Experiment in Comparative Theology. Albany. Griffith, Bede: 21984, Christ in India: Essays Towards a Hindu-Christian Dialogue, Illinois. ------------ : 1990, Rückkehr zur Mitte. Das Gemeinsame östlicher und westlicher Spiritualität. Düsseldorf. Kasper, Walter: 1974, Jesus der Christus. Mainz. Knitter, Paul F.: 1985, No Other Names? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes toward World Religions. New York. Lies, Lothar u. Hell, Silvia: 1992, Heilsmysterium. Eine Hinführung zur Christus. Graz. Panikkar, Raimundo: 1979, Myth, Faith and Hermeneutics. CrossCultural Studies. New York. ------------ : 1981, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. Towards and Ecumenical Christophany. Revised and Enlarged Edition. London. ------------ : 1982, Blessed Simplicity. The Monk as Universal Archetype. New York. ------------ : 1990, Der neue religiöse Weg. Im Dialog der Religionen leben. München. ------------ : 1992, Gottes Schweigen. Die Antwort des Buddha für unsere Zeit. München. Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli: 81997, Eastern Religions & Western Thoughts, New York. Rahner, Karl: 1999, Foundations of Christian Faith. An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity. New York. Sobrino, Jon: 1993, Jesus the Liberator. A Historical-Theological Reading of Jesus of Nazareth. New York. Valluvassery, Clement: 2001, Christus im Kontext und Kontext in Christus. Chalcedon und Indische Christologie bei Raimon Panikkar und Samuel Rayan. Münster. Jnanadeepa: PJRS 25/4 Oct-Dec 2021 127 Wilfred, Felix: 1993, Beyond Settled Foundations. The Journey of Indian Theology. Trichy. Clement Valluvassery is a Catholic priest, incardinated in the Archdiocese of Verapoly. He holds Master’s Degree in Catholic Theology and PhD from Leopold-FranzensUniversity, Innsbruck, Austria. He is the Associate Dean of Theology at Pontifical Institute of Theology and Philosophy, Alwaye (PIA) and teaches Systematic Theology. He is the Chief Editor of ‘The Living Word’, a Journal of Philosophy and Theology, being published from the Institute. His areas of research and publications are Christology, cross-cultural encounter and education. He served as vice-chancellor of the Archdiocese of Verapoly and as Manager of St Albert’s College, Ernakulam. He is the founder-manager of Albertian Institute of Science and Technology, AISAT-Technical Campus, Kalamassery and Albertian Institute of Management, Ernakulam.. Email: cvalluvassery@gmail.com ORCID: 0000-0002-8540-9109. Article received: March 28, 2021 Accepted: April 4, 2021 Word count: 6930 © by the authors. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/ by /4.0/). 128 C. Valluvassery: Inter-Religious Dialogue