|
 Dr.
Parichart, an Assistant Professor in Mahidol's Comparative Religion
Department, delivered the following paper at a conference entitled
"Visions for Religious Studies in the Next Century," which
was sponsored by the Comparative Religion Department of Mahidol
University and held in Bangkok on 20-21 January 1997. The original
paper was in Thai, and Dr. Parichart has kindly given me permission
to translate and present it here. My thanks to her.
When
confronted with the idea of interreligious dialogue, members of
most of the world's religions might well argue that there is nothing
new to such discussions; they have, historically, long been a part
of each religious tradition. Many of the world's religions, that
is, have an extended experience with interreligious dialogue, although
they may not have developed the principles and the rationale for
dialogue to the degree that those principles and that rationale
are now understood. It can be said that contemporary interreligious
dialogue has its "official" origins in Christian missionary
attempts to develop relations with and achieve an understanding
of other religions, as seen especially at the world missionary conference
that met in Edinburgh in 1910. [1]
While that conference is particularly noteworthy because it promoted
the ecumenical movement as a way to improve relations between Christian
denominations, it also gave attention to the inescapable involvement
of Christian missionaries with people of other faiths. The next
world missionary conference, meeting in Jerusalem in 1928, affirmed
the "value" of other religions and called on the adherents
of the various religions to join together in addressing the problem
of secularism, which the Jerusalem Conference saw as an attempt
to solve world problems without any reliance on religion.
[2]
Religious
dialogue, broadly speaking, has taken two different forms. On the
one hand, it has involved people of different religions in "interreligious
dialogue."
6
Dialogue, on the other hand, has also occurred between people
who belong to different sects or denominations within the same
larger religious tradition such as, for example, between Catholic
and Protestant Christians or between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists.
This second form of religious dialogue is termed "intrareligious
dialogue." One important issue that must be considered is
the extent to which these various discussions between people of
faith provide us today with a creative, effective methodology
for university religious studies programs. A second issue that
"traditional" interfaith dialogue raises, and one we
must consider here, is that of the very definition of interreligious
dialogue itself.
We usually
understand, initially, that interreligious dialogue amounts to
discussions about religion that take place between people from
two faith traditions for the purpose of gaining a better understanding
of each other. This definition is partly correct, but it is incomplete
because it fails to encompass all that is involved in interreligious
dialogue. When the members of two different faith traditions engage
in a comparison of points of the similarities and differences
between them, for example, we normally term such discussions as
"comparative religion" even though they also fit the
general definition of "interreligious dialogue" as well.
Comparative religious studies, however, is not interreligious
dialogue in the sense we are using the term in this paper. Comparative
studies attempt to use the instruments of the scientific method
to objectively study religious data without any preconceptions,
emotional input, or traditional religious perspectives involved.
The unavoidable problem facing the students of comparative religion,
we might add, is whether or not they can avoid prejudice when
they make comparisons between the ideas and beliefs of another
religion with their own faith.
Interreligious
dialogue, in contrast to comparative religious studies, involves
the expression of emotions and feelings as well as the personal
religious beliefs of individuals. The tools for this type of dialogue
are subjective, which is to say that interreligious dialogue involves
each side in revealing and sharing their feelings concerning firmly
held and deeply cherished beliefs. Such dialogue is good, and
it has great value for those engaged in it because it provides
each dialogue partner with an opportunity for learning.
[3] Interreligious dialogue of this personal
nature cannot
7
avoid discussing differences in beliefs, and it is not necessary
that it end in an agreement of opinions. It presents both partners,
rather, with an opportunity to learn each other's beliefs and, in
the process, to unlearn misapprehensions that one or both sides
previously held. [ 4] Interreligious
dialogue also offers those involved in dialogue with the possibility
to change their own point of view concerning the actual faith of
their partner in dialogue, thus gaining for themselves and that
partner a clearer shared understanding. This is what we seek in
every interreligious encounter, namely the opportunity to correct
our own misunderstandings regarding the faith of those with whom
we dialogue.
In spite
of the fact that interreligious dialogue is based on an initial
willingness to accept religious differences, it is always possible
that the dialogue process will cause tension and conflict to arise
between those involved in the process. The possibility of friction
underscores the importance of learning how to engage in the dialogue
process creatively and peacefully in the face of the difference
in religious perspectives that both partners in dialogue bring
to the process. Dialogue requires, in short, that those engaged
in dialogue be sensitive to each other and behave towards each
other in a positive manner. They must also avoid the "don'ts"
of interreligious dialogue described below.
Participants
in interreligious dialogue must particularly avoid the following
negative patterns of behavior:
1. dialogue must not be a matter of superficially accepting
disagreement and differences in order to avoid dissension, in
what we might term "lazy tolerance."
[5] Interreligious dialogue, that is, does
not support the concept of relativism, the idea that everything
and everything is acceptable.
2. dialogue must not be a confrontation as if those engaged
in dialogue are enemies, and it must not involve argumentation
for the sake of winning.
3. dialogue must not involve an "imperialistic" or
prejudicial judgment on the dialogue partner that is made before
dialogue even begins. [6]
One
8
must not enter into dialogue, that is, with
a either a false sense of pride or of humility. Those involved
in dialogue must also avoid belittling or extolling their own
beliefs, nor should they judge the beliefs of their partner in
dialogue before learning about the partner by listening to how
they explain their faith. Individuals sometimes enter into dialogue
with hidden feelings of absolutism, which is the idea that his
or her own truth is the most correct, complete, and best truth.
Such persons intend to rely on that "truth" to judge
their dialogue partner, which means in the end that they approach
that partner prejudicially.
4. dialogue must not be merely the exchange of religious data
or be nothing more than superficial discussions between the
adherents of two religions.
5. dialogue must not be driven by hidden agendas, for example
as an opportunity for proselyization [7]
or tricking people in order to gain additional adherents. If
changes in belief do take place, they should occur naturally
as a part of the dialogue process itself. It is possible for
one dialogue partner, for example, to learn about, understand,
and come to prefer the beliefs of the other partner, but such
a change must not be the basic purpose of dialogue. It is not
the purpose of dialogue to be a tool for gaining adherents for
one's own religion.
6. dialogue must not use a "mixing bowl" method,
[8] meaning that it should not merely takes
good points from the various religions and blend them into one's
own religion. This approach causes a syncretistic mixing of
teachings, or so much combining takes place that a new religion
entirely different from one's original beliefs is the result.
Instead of being a "creative" approach to dialogue,
approaches of this sort have a negative impact on dialogue because
each person who engages in dialogue must be a faithful representive
of their tradition and a witness to the beliefs of that tradition.
People who do not clearly declare themselves a believer in a
particular religious tradition will not be able to explain to
their dialogue partners what it is that inspires them in their
own religion, why they see it as being good,
9
and what they find in it that is personally meaningful in their
lives. This is true even if they have closely studied the belief
system of another particular religion. It is difficult for them
to represent the faith of that religion and enter into a dialogue
with other religious perspectives because they lack the value
judgments that arise out of the unique religious experience of
the faith that they are supposed to represent.
The definition
of interreligious dialogue with which this article began helps
us to understand that dialogue has nothing in common with either
absolutism or relativism. It does have a great deal in common,
however, with a religiously pluralistic type of religious faith.
[9] Such a faith accepts the fact that there
are many religions in the world, that there is more than one religious
belief system, and that each of those religions has its own way
of solving human problems based on its own religious logic. The
ultimate goals of the various religious faiths, according to this
pluralistic mode of thinking, may or may not be the same. Ultimate
reality, that is, may be the same for the various religions, for
example, faith in One God; or, it might be something entirely
different. [10] The important
point is that religious pluralism is willing to accept diversity.
The British religious scholar, John Hick, points out that the
world's religions differ in three distinct ways. First, they differ
according to their adherent's experience of the "divine,"
which for some religions such as Christianity and Islam is personal
while for others it is non-personal, such as the belief in nippan
(Nirvana) for Buddhists and The Way for Taoism. Second, the various
religions differ in their religious doctrine and philosophies
and are particularly conditioned by the various ways their teachings
have developed historically and culturally. Finally, since each
religion expresses its faith in ultimate reality differently each
religion also has a particular set of commandments, ways of behaving,
and rituals that respond to its particular expressions of faith.
[11]
At this point,
we can agree that the world's various religions have differences
and a distinct identity each within themselves. We can also agree
that interreligious dialogue affirms the plurality of beliefs,
which means that it accepts diversity, differences, and the fact
that there are many religions in the world. The willingness to
10
accept different religious beliefs and practices also reflects the
nature of globalization since one aspect of globalization itself
is the willingness to accept cultural and religious variety. It
is not possible for us to mandate that everyone should have the
same culture or believe the same things, and we have to accept the
reality of differences based on that diversity of cultures and religious
beliefs. Modern communications and transportation brings that diversity
of culture and beliefs into close proximity one with another. They
now have close relations with each other in the "global village."
At the same
time, however, the nature of globalization also enhances personal
identity, local culture, and the uniqueness of local life as well.
The same holds true for interreligious dialogue. The dialogue
process is a process of accepting the reality that the spiritual
values held by the faithful of the various religions are not encompassed
in a single category. That process demonstrates, at the same time,
a willingness to accept the differences between religions and
the particular religious identity of each religion. Yet, it is
also possible to bring understanding, cooperation, and unity out
of those differences, which we might term "unity amid diversity."
It might be said that interreligious dialogue is thus an appropriate
method for religious learning, whether it be dialogue between
individuals of different faiths or between groups of individuals
within the same faith. The problem is how to best establish an
appropriate framework in diagloue, one that allows for differing
ideas, that encourages people to both speak and listen, and that
is a practice which leads to the highest levels of understanding
and peace possible.
It was stated
at the beginning of this paper that interreligious dialogue should
avoid certain dangerous points. It, for example, should avoid
using the standards of belief and praxis of one group to judge
the beliefs and actions of others. Such an approach we can only
label as "imperialistic." Judgmentalism of this sort
takes place because those making the judgments are sure that the
truth referred to in their own beliefs is the highest and most
perfect truth. It is absolute truth. Partners in dialogue, however,
must have a broad mind, one that gives others the opportunity
to speak and is willing to listen to the expression of beliefs
that differ from their own. Dialogue partners, at the same time,
must have their own place to stand and be truly
11
representives of the faith they hold. These two aspects of dialogue,
that one must be open to the other and yet representive of one's
own faith, seem to contradict each other. But it is very important
for those who would engage in dialogue to understand from the
beginning that each dialogue encounter is not the final word in
deciding that the beliefs of people of other faiths are mistaken,
inferior, or defective. It is true that each participant in dialogue
will try to explain the truth of her or his faith and explain
why that truth is important, greatly influences their own life,
and should be important or even necessary to the life of the dialogue
partner as well. These arguments serve to confirm the faithful
stance of the person presenting them and confirm that they are
a representative of the faith they hold. At the same time, however,
this does not mean that those engaged in dialogue will judge others
before they give them an opportunity to explain their beliefs
and show how those beliefs differ from their own perspective.
Those who say, "I have the final, most complete answer, and
those who have revealed my truth to me expect me to use their
revealed truth to judge your truth" [12]
do not give their dialogue partners a chance explain their own
faith. They, instead, decide in advance that their dialogue partner's
faith is not as complete or perfect as their own faith, which
is taken to be the most correct form of religious beliefs. Opinions
of this sort create endless dissenssion and are detrimental to
interfaith understanding.
Those engaged
in dialogue, moreover, must have the courage and insight to treat
critically in a straighforward fashion the beliefs and practices
of their own religion, which means that they must be honestly
self-critical. [13] The process
of examining one's own religion critically in order to correct
particular practices will make that religion even more firm and
stable. This advice concerning the need for critical self-awareness
in dialogue does not conflict with the need for a person to preserve
the unique identity of his or her own religion. Forthright criticism
of one's own religion, furthermore, may take the form of new interpretations
of religious teaching or encourage a new perspective on religious
beliefs and practices that may well be more appropriate to a person's
contemporary situation. It is certain, however, that such new
perspectives must not be in conflict with the important doctrines
found in the scriptures of one's own religion. When a person taking
part in dialogue has no prejudice against her or his own faith
and also has no predisposition to favor it, dialogue can proceed
in an honest and sincere fashion. [14]
It will lead, furthermore, to trust that those engaged in the
process will dialogue with each other sincerely to the
12
end that something creative will take place. Creating trust of this
nature is important because an important obstacle to interreligious
dialogue occurs when there is the fear that if one speaks honestly
one party or the other will use what they learn from dialogue in
order to increase the number of their adherents. If interreligious
dialogue begins with trust and sincerety, it will successfully attain
the goals it has set out for itself.
Another important
point to remember is that from the beginning of an interreligious
dialogue encounter both sides should in fact want to dialogue
with each other. [15] If that
is not the case, dialogue will amount only to one side interviewing
the other, or it will entail only an ordinary exchange of religious
information. Those engaged in dialogue, furthermore, should always
being talking with each other at the same level, meaning that
if the subject of dialogue is doctrinal beliefs each partner must
discuss doctrinal beliefs found in their scriptures. If, again,
the subject of dialogue is popular beliefs and practices, the
dialogue partners should not introduce abstract or technical theological
material into the discussions. The point here is to keep misunderstandings
from taking place, misunderstandings that will waste time in arguments
that are aimed at different situations or concerns entirely.
From what
has been said above, it can be seen that interreligious dialogue
can take place with individuals of any level from academics who
specialize in interreligious dialogue to local people who are
not experts in their religion's scriptures but still practice
their religion faithfully according to their understanding of
it. Local people, too, can share their beliefs so that others
will know and understand that set of beliefs.
[16]
The various forms of interreligious dialogue include:
1. dialogue at the level of scriptural beliefs (Dialogue of Study)
2. dialogue that emphasives religious experience and practice
(Dialogue of Prayer)
3. dialogue for life, which empahsizes solving problems (Dialogue
of Life)
13
The first form
of interreligious dialogue, Dialogue of Study, usually is conducted
by scholars who want to know and understand, officially, the beliefs
of the dialogue partner. Such dialogue encounters, for example,
will refer to each religion's scriptures. The purpose of this form
of dialogue is to increase wisdom through understanding, which may
lead to cooperation in practice as well.
The second
form of interreligious dialogue, Dialogue of Prayer, is dialogue
by experimental actions. It begins with a sympathetic imagination
that conducts experiments based on the implications that particular
sets of beliefs have for religious praxis. For example, individuals
engaged in dialogue with Muslims might take John Dune's "Passing
Over" [17] and practice
fasting with their Muslim friends in order to understand the importance
of how Muslims gain a strong faith based on faithful religious
practice. They would do this (without any thought of changing
their religious affiliation) to understand how their Muslim friends
are able to fast, hold certain doctrines, and have the motivations
that enable them to fast as they do. When a person engaged in
dialogue tries this method of imagination and then experiments
with the actual religious practice of another faith until he or
she understands the ultimate truth underlying that practice, the
person is then able to "pass back" into the practice
of her or his own religion. This method is dialogue by imagination
and by shared religious practice and may lead to a better understanding
of the religious experience and highest religious truth or ultimate
end of the dialogue partner's religion.
The last
type of interreligous dialogue, Dialogue of Life, is a form that
emphasizes solving problems that every person of whatever religious
persuasion faces. Mny people around the world, for example, face
problems related to environmental pollution and human rights.
These problems are challenging and require immediate attention.
If members of the various religions enter into a dialogue that
examines the conditions, causes, and possible solutions of these
problems in light of the teachings of their own religion and if
they cooperation in solving these common problems, interreligious
dialogue will achive its goal. It will lead, that is, to mutual
understanding and cooperation between religions. It will facilitate
the bringing of different teachings together to help humanity
as much as possible.
14
The first type
of interreligious dialogue, Dialogue of Study, may seem to be merely
a form that is conducted by academics dwelling in their ivory towers
and involves only ideas without praxis. It is still, however, an
important form of dialogue. The second and third forms, which do
involve praxis, unavoidably depend on the knowledge and understanding
gained from the dialogue of study, which provides them with a foundation
for their praxis.
Interreligious
dialogue is necessary for Thai society because Thailand is under
the influence of globalization and has been influenced by the
fact of global unity. Thai society, which has its roots in Buddhism,
is not going to be able to separate itself from Thais who are
of other faiths than Buddhism. It is necessary, therefore, for
it to develop a religious perspective and practice appropriate
to its relationship with people of other faiths. Certain historical
factors, furthermore, also give cause to the need for interreligious
dialogue. Some groups in Thai society may have deeply rooted doubts
about dialogue because of the way in which some other religions
have tried to spread their religion in Thailand. There are segments
of Thai society that are still fearful and uncertain when it comes
to "dialogue between religions" with other religions.
This is especially true of other religions that have been accused
of having hidden purposes in wanting to learn about and understand
Thai religion and society. Such feelings as these in Thai society
should be an indication of the need for honest interreligious
dialogue between Buddhism and other religions. They indicate the
need for opportunities to discuss doubts and to understand each
other's methodologies in order to do away with doubts and in order
to gain a correct understanding of other religions.
Moreover,
many groups and people claim that Thai soicety and religion has
its own unique identity, one that preserves an underlying unity
and is not characterized by being divided into many sects and
denominations. Thailand does not, therefore, need an ecumenical
movement as do some other religions. Thailand, furthermore, more
or less has religious freedom and is religiously peaceful to a
degree. There is, these groups and people claim, thus no need
for interreligious dialogue, especially because they fear that
the consequences of dialogue will be more negative than positive
because dialogue might expose doubts and fears that are best left
uncovered. In spite of such thoughts, Thai society should consider
again its understanding of the
15
usefulness of conducting interreligious dialogue. An event that
took place in B.E. 2538 [C.E. 1995] gives clear indication of
this need to reconsider the value of interreligious dialogue.
In that year, a religious organization attempted to hold a seminar
involving Buddhists and members of another religion from India.
The seminar, however, was cancelled because of the suspicious
behavior of the international organization that sponsored it.
There was a fear that it might be trying to use Thailand as a
stage for creating interreligious dissension for its own advantage.
The problems concerning the intentions of the seminar's organizers
is not a subject we need discuss here, but the important point
that I want to point out here concerns an interview on the matter
given by one highly placed Thai official. That official stated,
"No one organizes interreligious dialogue seminars; they
are a danger that can create dissession."
[18] This statement reflects a failure to understand
the true purpose of interreligious dialogue. It also reflects
a widely spread suspicion or even fear in Thailand concerning
the fallout that can follow from interreligious dialogue. This
example points to the pressing need for an understanding of the
principles, purposes, values, ways, and perspective regarding
dialogue and interfaith relations that should be widely dissmenated
among students and the general public. The danger is that interfaith
misunderstanding, suspicion, and mistrust might lead to a general
unrest in society.
Each encounter
in interreligious dialogue, in sum, is not necessarily an end
in itself, and we cannot expect that each encounter will be completely
successful. This is because of the complexity of the interreligious
dialogue process itself and because of self-centered human nature,
which causes people to look at dialogue as a process difficult
to bring about successfully. It should be, however, a challenge
for religious scholars and those with a broad mind to accept the
reality of religious "variety and differences." They
should be able to use the epistemological methods of interreligious
dialogue and reap the benefits of those uses, which will enable
them to solve the problems of interfaith dissension. The unofficial
methods of dialogue of the past are worthy of study to the end
that a proper official theory and praxis of dialogue can be obtained,
a theory and praxis that reminds us of the old, long familiar
"liquor" that is now placed in a "standardized"
bottle for the common benefit of religious people of all faiths.
16
| 1. |
S. Wesley Ariarajah, "Interfaith Dialogue," Dictionary
of the Ecumenical Movement, edited by Nicholas Lossky
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1991), 281-282. |
| 2. |
Ariarajah, "Interfaith Dialogue," 282. |
| 3. |
Frederick J. Streng, Understanding Religious Life
(3d ed., Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1985), 235. |
| 4. |
Leonard Swidler, "Intereligious and interideological
Dialogue: The Matrix for all Systematic Reflection Today,"
Toward a Universal Theology of Religion edited by
Leonard Swidler (New York: Orbis Books, 1987), 6. |
| 5. |
Brennan R. Hill, Paul Knitter, and William Madges, Faith,
Religion and Theology (Mystic, Connecticut: Twenty-Third
Publications, 1990), 190, 195. |
| 6. |
Hill, et. al., Faith, Religion and Theology, 196. |
| 7. |
Paul Mojzes, "The What and the How of Dialogue,"
Interreligious Dialogue, edited by M. Darrol Bryant
and Frank Flinn (New York: Paragon House, 1989), 199. |
| 8. |
Hill, et. al., Faith, Religion and Theology, 195. |
| 9. |
Maurice Friedman, "The Dialogue of Touchstones as an
Approach to Interreligious Dialogue," Dialogue and
Syncretism: an Interdisciplinary Approach, edited by
Jerald D. Gort, et. al. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B.
Eerdmans, 1989), 76. |
| 10. |
"Religious pluralism," in fact may differ from
"perennial philosophy" in that this latter philosophy
emphasizess that while the religious beliefs of each religion
may differ in practice they lead to the same truth and are
thus the same thing. See Streng, Understanding Religious
Life, 239. |
| 11. |
John Hick, Philosophy of Religion (New Delhi: Prentice-Hall
of India, 1981), 127-9. |
| 12. |
Hill, et. al., Faith, Religion and Theology, 210. |
| 13. |
Swidler, "Intereligious and interideological Dialogue,"
15. |
| 14. |
Swidler, "Intereligious and interideological Dialogue,"
14. |
| 15. |
Mojzes, "The What and the How of Dialogue," 204. |
| 16. |
Hill, et. al., Faith, Religion and Theology, 203-4. |
| 17. |
Hill, et. al., Faith, Religion and Theology, 207-8. |
| 18. |
Mathichon, Wednesday, 15 November 2538 (1995),
in Thai. |
17
|
