Interreligious Dialogue

Interrelgious Dialogue

February 2013

In his book The Intra-religious Dialogue, Raimon Panikkar seeks to tap into our daily humanistic encounters through teachings, discussion, questions and exploration as a basis of religious dialogue. Panikkar sets forth a guidebook of sorts in which the reader can better understand his/her set of beliefs and faiths as well as set out on a personal mission to encounter the religious practices of people around the world without prejudice or preconceived notions. I think the main issue set forth by Panikkar is to guide us along the path towards the "realization of human destiny" and provide us with the tools to higher comprehension of all faiths and beliefs.

In the preface, Panikkar starts with a heady notion that the first steps of interreligious dialogue don't involve seeking truth, having discussion or even listening to others. Rather it "takes place in the depths of the person" (xvii). This rational would seem pretty straightforward and most of us might not consider it a big deal but I believe it is a simple yet very powerful aspect of what our class is about and what this book is about. We all might say we are "open" to alternative means of thinking and living but to what degree? I feel that a majority of people might say this but are very stubborn in their ways and no amount of teaching and realization would force them to waver from their ideals no matter if they believe they are "open" within themselves. This "self-openess" is an absolute when it comes to dialogue and is the keystone to which mankind is built upon.

I too might fall victim to this stubbornness. I definitely consider myself open to other customs and beliefs because as stated in my previous paper, I like to have "all the facts" laid before me when trying to understand who I am and how I should live my life, however I don't know if I have done enough so far to help with my realizations and am not sure whether I am actively seeking better enlightenment for myself. I am only generally accustomed to the ways and means of how I was raised but having had the opportunity to travel to different areas of the world and see different lifestyles I realize that there is so much more out there. A specific quote allows me to grasp what Pannikar is trying to say: "I trust the other not out of an ethical principle...but because I have discovered the thou as counterpart of the I, as belonging to the I (and not as not-I)" (38).

Another strong aspect of Panikkar's ideology is presented in the second chapter involving dialogical dialogue and is in some ways the next step of self-understanding after convincing yourself to be open. "The trusting in the other, considering the other a true source of understanding and knowledge...the common search for truth" is a pretty straightforward discipline for what we are striving to do with dialogue; yet the next sentence really provides the reasoning. "The acceptance of the risk of being defeated, converted, or simply upset..." (31). These words portrays the essence of dialogue not only from a religious standpoint but also humanity as a whole. We as humans have been fighting and bickering with each other since the very early beginning of time because of the fact that it is very difficult for us to accept and relate to other values, customs and beliefs that come to signify people from alternative places. I am fairly certain however that we live in a much more accepting society than ever before but there are still rifts between us and I'm not so sure that there will ever be a harmonious agreement of peoples. The words "acceptance of risk" makes humans very un-easy, it is in our very nature to stand up for what we believe and what we assume to know and sometimes that is a very good attribute to have, however there is a difference between standing up for what we believe and attacking those who do not share the same understanding as ourselves.

Even though I enjoyed the Klaus Klostermaier reading last month about religious dialogue, I have grown to appreciate Pannikar's views a little more fully based on how he continually breaks down the ever paradoxical information into simplistic terms. You can tell how smart he really is by the way he literraly breaks down words like I, religion, tolerance, interpretation and the like to convey to the reader just how important the intricate vernacular of the religious language. In Chapter 4's The Rules Of The Game, he gives his version of the way the words Faith, Hope and Love signify the meaning of interreligious dialogue.

In most views, Faith means a belief in one's attitudes and ideology towards a specific outcome. Pannikar describes faith as "an attitude that transcends the simple data" and how "these realities manifest themselves so that they make sense for our partner" (69-70). Hope is described as an attitude that is "urged from above to perform a sacred duty" so that we can put aside our previous conceptions of who we are in order to better prepare ourselves for religious dialogue. Love is an "impulse, that force impelling us to our fellow-beings and leading us to discover in them what is lacking in us" (70). When first reading this particular part of the book I merely glanced over it but after re-reading and re-focusing, I grew to really appreciate what he is trying to say. In my view, these three basic words (and the more intricate definitions proposed by Pannikar) gives me and the reader a very sturdy foundation on which we can delve into the ever-growing realm of not only religious dialogue, but self-appreciation of our personal self and our communal self.

In Pope John Paul II's

...