Reflections on Interreligious Dialogue
Fr. Ignatius Hirudayam, native-born Jesuit, is founder and director of the interreligious dialogue center at Aikiya Alayam (temple of unity) opened in Madras in August, 1966. In 1980, Fr. Ignatius was a consultant for the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India, Commission for Dialogue, at Rishikesh. In 1978, he presented one of the two major position papers at the 2nd Plenary Assembly of the FABC (Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conference), held at Barrackpore, India. His 56-page comprehensive paper is entitled: “Prayer in Asian Traditions”. Called to Rome March 1,1983 as a special resource person for SEDOS (Servito et Documentatione de Stude) Fr. Ignatius was present with some 50–60 Generals of Religious Orders and Congregations in Rome for their annual meeting. The theme for 1983 was “Interreligious Dialogue.” The relationship between dialogue and mission was discussed and re-eva1uated. Fr. Ignatius also participated as a resource person at the International Interreligious Seminar at the Immaculate Conception Seminary in Darlington, NJ in March, 1983. This article is taken from that talk.
It is helpful to consider in World Religions, i.e. Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Jainism, Hinduism in its various forms, Judaism, Christianity and Is1am, the main problem, the goal desired and the means used to solve the problem and reach the goal.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are a group which speak of sin as the problem while salvation from sin is the goal and grace and the sacraments are the means. In other religions, sin is not the problem. For Buddhists and Hindus, ego is the problem; the goal is to transcend the ego and attain the Ultimate Reality. In regard to the means, some are Pelagian i.e. the use of self-effort by which they hope to attain the End. These would include Jains, Buddhists, and Vedantic Hindus. Other forms of Hinduism, e.g. Theistic Hindus: Shaivites, Vaishnavites, etc. use God’s grace and man’s cooperation and devotion as means. The goal here is union with God and in this they are somewhat similar to Christians, although the problem is different.
In Taoism and Confucianism the problem is alienation from nature; the goal is to get rid of the alienation and become identified with nature; the means, again Pelagian, i.e. se1f-effort using meditation techniques. Some forms of Buddhism, Theistic, Pure Land, speak about grace and also use prayer and jappa techniques.
Therefore, if the Church understands mission only as a way in which we must be saved from sin, then mission fails. Such people as we have just described are not interested. Thinking men and women of other religions are not interested in our scholastic, Aristotelian systems.
Interreligious Dialogue—the Only Lifestyle for the Church
Therefore, following the directives given by Vatican II, (“theological investigation must necessarily be stirred up in each major socio-cu1tura1 area”, Ad Gentes, a.22 p.2–5), it also follows that a certain amount of rethinking of our doctrine and reformulation of it is a sine qua non for future effective missionary work.
The mission mandate stands but the content and mode of preaching must be rethought. For this rethinking interreligious dialogue is a must. The Catholic Church has realized this in the Second Vatican Council. We must march in the direction given by Vatican II but not allow stagnating—theologizing is a must! Interreligious dialogue is obviously then not a technique of evangelization. If so, it will only defeat its purpose and believers of other religions will only suspect us more. What then is the challenge today facing the Church? In this age when these various religions have been brought so close together, interreligious dialogue is the only lifestyle for the Church living her Christian faith—a lifestyle therefore of Catholic faith and Christian life—dialogue being understood as a means for conversion. Conversion is returning to the Center and discovering the Truth of truths. We must leave God work in the soul in his own sweet way.
Equality of Partners
Every true dialogue is a summit meeting. Dialogue presupposes that each member takes seriously and sincerely the equality of all partners in dialogue. The respect, appreciation and affection we show to persons of other religions cannot stand without spilling over into an appreciation, respect and love for the other’s convictions—that means their religion as such. What Dr. DeBoyd said strongly in Encounter of Religions is true: these people are not saved in their religions but they are saved by their religions.
Here I differ from our great patron St. Francis Xavier. When he went to Japan he was asked “what about our forefathers?” He had no answer except, “let the dead bury the dead.” But Hinduism was a way of salvation for millions and millions of my forefathers and hence deserves respect and affection. This has not been destroyed by my fidelity to Christ. I must not hate the mother that brought me to Christ!
In dialogue I bring my convictions, otherwise I am only superficially socializing, politicizing, etc. Can we come close and share that which is deepest in our lives in an in-depth sharing? I cannot peel off the person from symbols and religious conviction. In me and through me it is Christianity and Catholicism which is encountering and dialoging with Hinduism. The first effect of this dialogue is that in the process I become my own enculturation, e.g. I express my Christian faith in and through the language of my forefathers and not the language of the West. Therefore, this dialogue is my lifestyle, living as a Christian.
In God’s Heart—A Place for All
Hindus have found intolerably patronizing the statement that Christ is the fulfillment of Hinduism. Missionaries of the past two decades spoke of us as being the crown and fulfillment and other religions as partial. But truly Christians may find enrichment in Hinduism and Buddhism. We have to accept in the divine plan of human salvation all these religions with their own problems, means and goals. . . . Each has a place in God. He accepts us as we are with our sins, failings, idiosyncrasies—so too with religions. God has a place in his heart for all. It is God our idiosyncrasies are seeking.
Now we know we cannot seek God unless he seeks us first. St. Augustine said: “We cannot love what we do not know.” God is the Creator of all these religions. He is responsible, except for what is incompatible with his holiness. We must not discard what he loves. If not even a blade of grass can grow without God, the thinking, the intuitions in the minds of the Rishis could not have taken place without God. Therefore, the religious literature of my forefathers is the gift of God to me which he wants me to use for my salvation. He wants me to integrate it into the Word of God which I have received in Christianity. For me these writings of other religions are inspiring because they are written in mystic and poetic language which touches my heart and others and convinces me they are inspired by God. Since I believe the Holy Spirit is still around in the Church, not only in the hierarchal structure but also in the theologians and scholars who prosper the work of the Church, I am hoping for a day when these scriptures which are so inspired will also find a place in official worship by the side of the Old and New Testaments.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are a group which speak of sin as the problem while salvation from sin is the goal and grace and the sacraments are the means. In other religions, sin is not the problem. For Buddhists and Hindus, ego is the problem; the goal is to transcend the ego and attain the Ultimate Reality. In regard to the means, some are Pelagian i.e. the use of self-effort by which they hope to attain the End. These would include Jains, Buddhists, and Vedantic Hindus. Other forms of Hinduism, e.g. Theistic Hindus: Shaivites, Vaishnavites, etc. use God’s grace and man’s cooperation and devotion as means. The goal here is union with God and in this they are somewhat similar to Christians, although the problem is different.
In Taoism and Confucianism the problem is alienation from nature; the goal is to get rid of the alienation and become identified with nature; the means, again Pelagian, i.e. se1f-effort using meditation techniques. Some forms of Buddhism, Theistic, Pure Land, speak about grace and also use prayer and jappa techniques.
Therefore, if the Church understands mission only as a way in which we must be saved from sin, then mission fails. Such people as we have just described are not interested. Thinking men and women of other religions are not interested in our scholastic, Aristotelian systems.
Interreligious Dialogue—the Only Lifestyle for the Church
Therefore, following the directives given by Vatican II, (“theological investigation must necessarily be stirred up in each major socio-cu1tura1 area”, Ad Gentes, a.22 p.2–5), it also follows that a certain amount of rethinking of our doctrine and reformulation of it is a sine qua non for future effective missionary work.
The mission mandate stands but the content and mode of preaching must be rethought. For this rethinking interreligious dialogue is a must. The Catholic Church has realized this in the Second Vatican Council. We must march in the direction given by Vatican II but not allow stagnating—theologizing is a must! Interreligious dialogue is obviously then not a technique of evangelization. If so, it will only defeat its purpose and believers of other religions will only suspect us more. What then is the challenge today facing the Church? In this age when these various religions have been brought so close together, interreligious dialogue is the only lifestyle for the Church living her Christian faith—a lifestyle therefore of Catholic faith and Christian life—dialogue being understood as a means for conversion. Conversion is returning to the Center and discovering the Truth of truths. We must leave God work in the soul in his own sweet way.
Equality of Partners
Every true dialogue is a summit meeting. Dialogue presupposes that each member takes seriously and sincerely the equality of all partners in dialogue. The respect, appreciation and affection we show to persons of other religions cannot stand without spilling over into an appreciation, respect and love for the other’s convictions—that means their religion as such. What Dr. DeBoyd said strongly in Encounter of Religions is true: these people are not saved in their religions but they are saved by their religions.
Here I differ from our great patron St. Francis Xavier. When he went to Japan he was asked “what about our forefathers?” He had no answer except, “let the dead bury the dead.” But Hinduism was a way of salvation for millions and millions of my forefathers and hence deserves respect and affection. This has not been destroyed by my fidelity to Christ. I must not hate the mother that brought me to Christ!
In dialogue I bring my convictions, otherwise I am only superficially socializing, politicizing, etc. Can we come close and share that which is deepest in our lives in an in-depth sharing? I cannot peel off the person from symbols and religious conviction. In me and through me it is Christianity and Catholicism which is encountering and dialoging with Hinduism. The first effect of this dialogue is that in the process I become my own enculturation, e.g. I express my Christian faith in and through the language of my forefathers and not the language of the West. Therefore, this dialogue is my lifestyle, living as a Christian.
In God’s Heart—A Place for All
Hindus have found intolerably patronizing the statement that Christ is the fulfillment of Hinduism. Missionaries of the past two decades spoke of us as being the crown and fulfillment and other religions as partial. But truly Christians may find enrichment in Hinduism and Buddhism. We have to accept in the divine plan of human salvation all these religions with their own problems, means and goals. . . . Each has a place in God. He accepts us as we are with our sins, failings, idiosyncrasies—so too with religions. God has a place in his heart for all. It is God our idiosyncrasies are seeking.
Now we know we cannot seek God unless he seeks us first. St. Augustine said: “We cannot love what we do not know.” God is the Creator of all these religions. He is responsible, except for what is incompatible with his holiness. We must not discard what he loves. If not even a blade of grass can grow without God, the thinking, the intuitions in the minds of the Rishis could not have taken place without God. Therefore, the religious literature of my forefathers is the gift of God to me which he wants me to use for my salvation. He wants me to integrate it into the Word of God which I have received in Christianity. For me these writings of other religions are inspiring because they are written in mystic and poetic language which touches my heart and others and convinces me they are inspired by God. Since I believe the Holy Spirit is still around in the Church, not only in the hierarchal structure but also in the theologians and scholars who prosper the work of the Church, I am hoping for a day when these scriptures which are so inspired will also find a place in official worship by the side of the Old and New Testaments.
Website by Booklight, Inc. Copyright © 2010, Monastic Dialogue
