|
|
VOLUME IX, Number 1
January - June 2019 .jpg)
Raimon Panikkar
CULTURES AND RELIGIONS IN DIALOGUE
Opera Omnia, Volume VI, Part 2: Intercultural and Interreligious Dialogue
From its institutional beginnings in the 1970s, Monastic Interreligious Dialogue (DIM·MID), broadly understood as dialogue at the level of spiritual practice and experience, has benefited greatly from Ramon Panikkar’s life-long pursuit of what he calls “intercultural and interreligious dialogue as a path to survival” (p. xiii). In 2004, he was invited to speak at the organization’s annual meeting, which was held at the Catalan Abbey of Monserrat. Chapter eight of the present volume, “Some Observations on Interreligious Dialogue: The Risks of a Western Mindset; An Analysis of the Present Situation,” consists of notes on his lecture that were taken by the then Secretary General of DIM·MID, Fr. Pierre-François de Béthune.
Especially important for DIM·MID’s understanding of its specific approach to interreligious dialogue has been Panikkar’s insistence on the role of experience and personal relationship in dialogue. In this collection of essays he repeatedly insists that
Dialogue is not mere study or understanding (although, indeed, by dialogue I may well deepen my understanding of my partner), but a total human contrast and participation in deeper communication and fuller communion (p. 78).
Panikkar’s emphasis on the place of experience in dialogue goes hand in hand with his conviction that interreligious dialogue, indeed all genuine dialogue,
begins with the sincere questioning of all my certainties—because I have realized, on the one hand, that I am a fragile vessel and, on the other, that there are in this world other vessels at whose contents I can scarcely guess. . . . [Dialogue] arises from the innermost core of our self, when we discover we are neither absolute nor alone in this world” (p. 121).
The reason some continue to be uneasy about dialogue with followers another religious tradition is precisely because they are aware that it will inevitably involve this kind of self-examination—which Panikkar refers to as “intra-religious” dialogue—and they fear that the outcome will be a weakening or even a loss of their faith. Panikkar, however, is convinced that if we know our own tradition as best we can and then work to develop empathy for and understanding of the faith of others, we will see “that to discover another religion is at the same time to deepen and purify our own, and that to enter into another tradition can only enrich us ” (p. xvii). In other words, “You can be concrete in your allegiances and universal in your outlook” (p. 18).
A monastic vocation is a call to continual conversion, and interreligious dialogue is one way to practice that vocation. The root meaning of the word “conversion” is “turning,” and it frequently refers to the act of turning away from some belief or practice. Continual conversation, on the other hand, implies a constant turning toward a more expansive and deeper understanding of whom and what one believes and how one expresses that belief. Those who practice continual conversion by entering into interreligious dialogue at the level of spiritual experience will discover that what is demanded of them is “a mutual confrontation of everything they are, believe, and believe they are in order to establish that deeper human fellowship without prejudicing the results, without precluding any possible transformation of their personal religiousness” (p. 78).
Panikkar insists that interreligious dialogue cannot simply be limited to a discussion about doctrines or concepts. The only way to arrive at a deep understanding of and appreciation for the values and beliefs of other religious practitioners is to enter into a personal relationship with them and make an concentrated effort to see the world as they see it. Succinctly put—and Panikkar is a master of succinctness—“We cannot understand a person’s ultimate convictions unless we somehow share them” (p. 42). To give a concrete example,
A Christian cannot assume at the outset that he knows what a Buddhist means when speaking about nirvāņa and anātman, just as a Buddhist cannot immediately be expected to understand what a Christian means by God and Christ before they have encountered not just the concepts but their living context, which include different ways at looking at reality: they have to encounter each other before any meeting of doctrines” (p. 36).
There is hardly a page in this collection of Panikkar’s writings on interreligious dialogue on which readers, even those with long experience of interreligious dialogue, will not find enlightening and/or provocative insights into the challenge and promise of the quintessential human activity that is dialogue. For Panikkar,
Man is not an individual, a monad. Man is rather a person, a bundle or relationships. And human relationships require dialogue. In other words, without dialogue, without a dialogical life, Man cannot attain a fully human condition. Man is animal loquens. But linguisticality is not only external communication; it is most of all inner communication (p. 116)
One of the most well-known maxims of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe is “Those who have no acquaintance with foreign languages know nothing of their own.“[1] As Panikkar makes eminently clear in this collection, the same can be said for the knowledge of one’s own religion.
[1] Wer fremde Sprachen nicht kennt, weiss nichts von seiner eigenen. Goethe’s collection of maxims and reflections was published in 1833. An English version can be found at Open Road Media. The maxim on the necessity of knowing another language to understand your own is #414. |
_Web.jpg) |