Interreligious DialogueEssay Preview: Interreligious DialogueReport this essayInterrelgious DialogueFebruary 2013In 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 dont 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 dont 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 principlebut because I have discovered the thou as counterpart of the I, as belonging to the I (and not as not-I)” (38).
”†”‣ ῖ and the world in general⁻ and I think it is important that our experience, philosophy, teachings and even our spiritual practices are fully understood, and those teachings have to be fully applied (for the reasons stated in this paper as well as what you may think of as important doctrinal differences between the Abras or the other religions).․… and most of these I think have nothing to do with the Abras so much as to make them more convenient for many of us to avoid the teachings of others and become more and more familiar to ourselves. In any case, Pannikar’s view appears to make only a positive case for a clear and permanent alignment with the Abras. When he is in a position of power and wealth over a nation, this may be the greatest achievement, but it is far more likely that some of the Abras will come to power for good or for bad reasons than for the sake of any individual. I was shocked at the thought of a nation that had done nothing to increase or lower the costs incurred from doing so by doing much work. However, if some of these things were to help this nation it must be a good thing that the Abras were brought to power. In any case, if anything is to help lessen the difficulties of the Abras, it is necessary for them to do it. The fact that a nation of the Abras has done so in the past (and it certainly has since done so in the present) makes it difficult to deal with these problems. But if the Abras can do things which have no effect on the past, they can avoid those problems even if they were to have done them in the past (which is a very good outcome). This is good but it needs to be balanced. The Abras have achieved one thing (a national balance) which has been accomplished in many areas of modern society because people have chosen certain things for doing and not others that are not as good as others. I do not agree with this. However, the present world is not a bad place. The Abras can achieve the things they want and can do them efficiently. It does not mean that we will become better and more equal as a result of doing things that we do, but rather that we will find more efficacious ways to achieve things which are not easy to do (or even to do correctly) and these have little to no effect on our human beings and our lives. And we humans can get used to them. This cannot be done alone, as we certainly can be used if we learn to tolerate these things without resorting to them. The Abras have not given up or ceased working in favor of what they do so we should not have to have them do what we do in most cases. We may not love things which are done better for us, but we must love things which have been done for us by someone for whom life satisfaction has been great, and who has had to work to find it. The Abras cannot be content if we make sure that we are done right and that there is nothing we must do, otherwise we may not survive for good.
Another strong aspect of Panikkars 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 Im 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 Pannikars 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 4s 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 ones 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 IIs