Religious diversity has been around for a long time, but it began impacting society only when people of different religious persuasions came in close contact with one another. With the ease of travel and increase in trade, the impact has continued to increase. At least in major cities of the world, it is now virtually impossible in the course of a day not to cross path with someone from another religion.
When people of different persuasions—whether different religiously, socially, politically or sexually—come together, it is natural for them to talk about and share their interests, outlooks and beliefs with others. That is how dialogue in its most basic form occurs in daily life. When the exchange focuses predominantly on ideas and information related to religion, it becomes religious dialogue, and when the people involved belong to different religions, the dialogue becomes interreligious.
Dialogue occurs not only through personal conversations and encounters but also via the written word: through letters and emails, for instance. Dialogue can also occur through essays and books, followed by responses and counter-responses to them. That is how dialogue can occur both in real time and also spread over days, years, even centuries. It’s the exchange of ideas that is central to a dialogue, not when or how that exchange occurs.
Just because a dialogue is interreligious does not guarantee that it is done interreligiously. It can be a purely secular activity when done by people who are not particularly religious. It can also be a religious activity when done by those who take religion seriously. When does an interreligious dialogue become an interreligious activity? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to examine the various motives for dialogue, the conditions for a meaningful dialogue, and the benefits of a good dialogue.
Motives for Dialogue
Dialogue is a two-way process involving at least two individuals, two groups, two ideologies, or two whatever. It is a way of engaging “the other.” The engagement can occur either on an equal or an unequal footing. The purpose of an interreligious dialogue and the goal that is sought depend on how the persons concerned view religion, their own and others’. Many approaches to religious diversity are possible but the following four models have been around for some time: replacement, fulfillment, mutuality, and acceptance.
The “replacement” model is sponsored by those with an exclusivist approach to religion. In this way of thinking, there is only one true religion and all others are false. The goal of all engagement, voluntary or not, is to replace the false religions by the one true religion. The implicit idea is that not only is the truth one but it can be expressed in only one way.
The “fulfillment” model fits a mindset of those with an inclusivist approach, who believe that other religions have at least some truth and hence serve a preparatory purpose. The hope is that the followers of those religions will eventually be converted to the one true faith and receive the complete truth. Those who fail to do so are believed to be permanently deprived of the eternal blessing. Real and lasting fulfillment can come only through the one true religion. The inclusivists practice tolerance, so it is possible to view the “fulfillment” model as a toned-down version of the “replacement” model.
The “mutuality” model is based on the recognition that religions of the world are equal partners and there may be a lot to gain by sharing with one another and listening to one another. This model encourages the dialogic approach and it comes in many shades. In every shade the equality of religions may not necessarily be full and unquestioned. Some may see other religions as equal and worthy of engagement on the social or intellectual level but not necessarily on the religious level.
The “acceptance” model goes beyond mere tolerance of other religions. Here all religions are viewed as equally true and authentic, and hence dialogue-worthy at every level. Every religion is given the freedom to express itself and grow in its own way. This kind of harmonious approach toward other religions has the strength to affirm spiritual unity without diminishing the value of religious diversity. It sees diversity not as a problem to be overcome but as a reality to be celebrated and an opportunity to expand one’s horizon.
The motive for dialogue is determined by which of these models is active in an engagement. In the “replacement” model, the decision has already been made. The other religions are wrong and must be brought to light. The intensity of the missionary zeal to proselytize is fed primarily by an exclusivist approach to religion. The dialogue in such a case is really a monologue. If “the other” must be heard, it is only to know how much work is needed to bring them on the right path. The focus is on telling them what is wrong with their way of life and why they should change it. The goal is to make “them” more like “us.” In the “fulfillment” model, the basic motive remains the same but the rhetoric is less aggressive and the tone somewhat generous, even if patronizing.
It is the “mutuality” model which provides an ideal environment for dialogue and, if the dialogue partners are sufficiently open-minded, there is a real possibility of at least some of them embracing the “acceptance” model sooner or later. Even people who are not particularly religious may see the utility of interreligious dialogue on a purely secular level. Such social pragmatists reason that, since we have to live as fellow citizens anyway, it is better that we get to know one another well so we can live harmoniously, or at least tolerate one another’s presence without too much suspicion, misunderstanding and distrust.
The dialogue in the “acceptance” model occurs not in response to a society’s need for peace and harmony but out of the natural desire to learn, to expand, and to enrich one’s religious consciousness. It is fed by a kind of religious “hunger” to experience the presence and glory of God in as many ways as possible.
Conditions for a Meaningful Dialogue
Not every interreligious dialogue is successful as anyone who has participated in them knows. What are the conditions necessary to have a dialogue that can be considered worth the time and energy that are expended on it? At least four conditions come to mind right away.
The first condition is that the dialogue partners accept the possibility that they may have something new to learn from the encounter. If the goal is merely to teach or to inform or to “give,” with no interest in or expectation of learning or “receiving” something useful, then the dialogue becomes a series of monologues. People end up talking past one another, with no one learning anything useful. The biases, prejudices and wrong notions remain intact. Everyone may be civil with one another, the smiles and the handshakes may be warm and genuine, but little is gained from such interreligious encounters. Everyone returns home feeling good, but it’s a feeling that evaporates quickly.
On the other hand, if the desire is to share, not only to give but also to receive, then the second condition becomes almost predictable: that the dialogue partners listen to one another with respect, care and understanding. Unless we respect “the other,” we won’t be able to give them our undivided attention. When we listen to our dialogue partners with respect and attention, we demonstrate visibly that we care and are eager to understand them. The respect, if it’s genuine, helps minimize the impact of one’s inherited biases and prejudices, and at least some of these may be removed by the desire to understand.
The third condition for a meaningful dialogue is to refrain from making any assumptions. It requires that we come to the table without a pre-determined agenda or goal. Nothing should be taken for granted and nothing should be considered non-negotiable. A dialogue does not necessarily mean agreement at all levels. On the contrary, a dialogue is meant to reveal where we agree and where we do not. Ideally, this should at some stage lead to reflection on the relative value of our mutual agreements and disagreements, and which of these matter more.
Hence the fourth and final condition is that the dialogue partners speak frankly and openly not just about what is shared in common but also about where they differ. The things we share in common help bring us together. Our differences may keep us apart and even raise questions. One obvious question is, since we do things differently and since our belief-systems are different, who amongst us is right? A not-so-obvious question may be, is it necessary that in every form of disagreement, there is only one right answer? Instead of thinking in terms of “right” or “wrong,” it may be more useful and practical to think in terms of “different.” Maybe we are all just different, with no one amongst us with a monopoly on truth. Maybe it is the same truth that we all seek and it feels different when we clothe it in ideas, symbols, words, and ritual.
Speaking in Boston in 1896, Swami Vivekananda said,
“Truth may be expressed in a thousand ways, and each one yet be true. We must learn that the same thing can be viewed from a hundred different standpoints, and yet be the same thing.” (As reported in Boston Evening Transcript, March 30, 1896.)
If photographs of a building are taken from ten different angles, no two of those pictures will look identical and yet they are the pictures of the same building. Perhaps the different word-pictures, or conceptual frameworks, we have about God may be of the one and the same Being? In a dialogue done interreligiously, such questions acquire importance. Everyone should be free to ask any question, to themselves or to others, and everyone should have the freedom to choose the answer that resonates with their head and heart.
Benefits of a Successful Dialogue
When a dialogue is successful, it brings several benefits. One obvious benefit is that it improves our understanding of “the other.” It is not unusual to discover that some of our deep-seated biases and prejudices were not in fact rooted in reality. That helps remove needless distrust and misunderstanding, and in extreme cases, even hatred. A dialogue brings people together and, when they get to know one another as fellow human beings, it breaks the ice and creates warmth. It is difficult to hate a religion when you personally know that warm, intelligent and considerate people practice it. In a larger context, it helps promote social harmony and peace.
Another benefit is on the religious level. We may discover that every religion has something unique to contribute to the world. If survival of the fittest is the norm, then there is a reason why so may religions are still not only surviving but thriving. They have something precious and useful which the world needs. An interreligious engagement through dialogue thus helps us enrich our own religious consciousness. It can be endlessly inspiring to observe the multifarious ways in which the power of God operates in the world.
Odd as it may sound, interreligious dialogue often gives us a better understanding of our own religion. Some idea or some concept from another religion that we hear about in the course of a dialogue may awaken in our minds the memory of an idea or a concept from our own tradition. When we put the two ideas or concepts alongside each other and study them, employing not only faith but also reason, there is an opportunity to have a deeper understanding of both. Such comparative study is immensely enriching and fulfilling.
While every religion is complete in itself to bring its followers the highest fulfillment, it does not preclude us from finding through interreligious dialogue additional tools which can be integrated in the understanding and practice of our own spiritual lives. For instance, prayer as an act of communing with God is common to most religions: the love of God that draws a person to prayer is universal, although the method, the language and the accompanying ritual vary among religions. It is not unusual to see differences even within a religious tradition. No religion is a monolithic group. Seeing how love for God manifests in others, in those from one’s own religion and also from other religions, may provide both education and inspiration to a person who takes religion seriously.
Being Interreligious
Only the “mutuality” and “acceptance” models provide a framework for doing interreligious dialogue interreligiously. Science and technology have brought us all close to one another, sometimes uncomfortably so. In a world of shrinking distances and expanding trade and travel, our lives have become more interdependent than ever before. Any major occurrence in any part of the world now has repercussions upon us all. Being religious is no longer enough in today’s world. In order to lead richer, fulfilling religious lives, every one of us must learn to be interreligious, a state of being that travels the pathless path to the truth which is beyond all religious labels.