A useful introduction to the thought and writings of Raimundo Panikkar. Cousins sees Panikkar as a “spiritual mutant” from the future who proposes the Trinity be used as a frame for interreligious dialogue. The three dimensions of the Trinity (the silent apophatic Father, the personalistic Son, and the immanent Spirit) have correspondences across religions. Cousins describes five characteristics of Panikkar’s spirituality-based theology: (1) It is distinctly Christian, (2) It is comprehensively ecumenical, (3) It is not triumphalistic or imperialistic, (4) It takes its point of departure from religious experience rather than from philosophy, (5) Its coincidence of opposites: of the void and fullness. Cousins also touches on his own concept of “shamanistic epistemology” and points to Panikkar’s work as an example.
Chapter Five: Dialogic Dialogue: Journey into Global Consciousness
This journey involves (1) an encounter with other religions, (2) “passing over” into the other religion and “coming back” enriched, (3) developing a theory of the interrelation of religions. Cousins uses his own experiences with the Rosebud Sioux and with the Islamic culture as examples of this process. He also describes his comparative study on Bonaventure , Eckhart, Ramanuja, and Sankara in the correspondences of Christian and Hindu mysticism.
—Cousins, Ewert. “My Journey into Interreligious Dialogue: Part I.” Monastic Interreligious Dialogue, Bulletin 73, October, 2004.
A readable description of the initial journeying of an interreligious dialogue pioneer.
—Cousins, Ewert. “My Journey into Interreligious Dialogue: Part II.” Monastic Interreligious Dialogue, Bulletin 74, April, 2005.
Completion of Cousins’ description of his journey with some emphasis on Teilhard de Chardin’s ideas and on our entering a Second Axial Period.
—Dean, Thomas. “Universal Theology and Dialogical Dialogue.” In Leonard Swidler (Ed.) Toward a Universal Theology of Religion. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987.
Dean says that it is possible to have both a universal theory and dialogical dialogue, that the two are not in conflict, depending on what is meant by the word “universal.” Conflict occurs is one is referring to a universal perspective, but not when one is speaking of universal data.
—Duran, Khalid. “Interreligious Dialogue and the Islamic ‘Original Sin.’” In Leonard Swidler (Ed.) Toward a Universal Theology of Religion. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987.
In responding to Hans Kung’s article Dialogue With Islam, Duran laments (in a kindly way) that the same ground has to be covered again and again with relative newcomers to the “dialogue business.” In addition, their “new findings” have yet to begin to reach the general public. He says a major reason Muslims are not out engaging in interreligious dialogue is that attentions are diverted, lives lost, and energies “absorbed in a struggle against the most ruthless dictatorship at home or in an outright battle for survival against an expanding colonial empire.”
—Eck, Diana. Encountering God: A Spiritual Journey from
Eck discusses exclusivism (my religion is the only one), inclusivism (other religions exist and are valid, but mine is at the top of the spiritual food chain), and pluralism (the world of active interreligious dialogue.)
—Fernando,
Makes the point that the language used to discuss interreligious dialogue varies dramatically depending upon whether one’s conceived audience is one’s own religious sect or the wider religious community (trans-sect-ual).
—Fu, Charles Wei-Hsun. “A Universal Theory or a Cosmic Confidence in Reality: A Taoist/Zen Response.” In Leonard Swidler (Ed.) Toward a Universal Theology of Religion. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987.
In his response to Raimundo Panikkar’s paper “The Invisible Harmony” in this same volume, Fu points out that Taoism and Zen have not fallen into the trap of “conflicting truth claims, that they are guides “to the total liberation of our mind from such entanglements.” Fu is in favor of complete dialogical openness, with no universal template imposed.
—Heschel, Abraham Joshua. “No Religion Is An
Heartfelt, almost conversational, expression of Heschel’s approach toward interreligious dialogue “My first task in every encounter is to comprehend the personhood of the human being I face….To meet a human being is a major challenge to mind and heart. I must recall what I normally forget….The human is a disclosure of the divine.” He is succinct and poetic in his understanding of “the purpose of interreligious cooperation.” “It is neither to flatter nor to refute another, but to help one another; to share insight and learning, to cooperate in academic ventures on the highest scholarly level, and what is even more important to search in the wilderness for well-springs of devotion, for treasures of stillness, for the power of love and care for man….to keep alive the divine sparks in our souls….”
—Harakas, Stanley. “Orthodox Christianity and Theologizing.” In Leonard Swidler (Ed.) Toward a Universal Theology of Religion. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987.
Harakas takes a firm stand in his religion (Eastern Orthodox Christianity) and discusses his discomfort with aspects of the conference on which this book is based.
—Inada, Kenneth. “Christocentrism-Buddhacentrism.” In Leonard Swidler (Ed.) Toward a Universal Theology of Religion. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987.
Points out that meditation practices are an invaluable and essential component of any attempts at interreligious dialogue, but are not mentioned or only given scant attention.
—Izutsu, Toshihiko. Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts.
Chapter One: Lao-Tzu and Chuang Tzu
In this chapter, Izutsu describes Lao-Tzu as a shaman-philosopher (reminiscent of Ewert Cousin’s concept of shaman-theologian) and Chuang-Tzu as one who put Lao-Tzu’s teaching on more solid experiential ground. Lao-Tzu’s contrast of the experience and contents of ordinary conventional mind and of original (from the Origin) mind is brought out in this chapter.
Chapter Five: The Birth of a New Ego
A rich and “meaty” chapter focusing on Lao-Tzu and Chuang-Tzu’s understanding of ego and the mind. We create an ego with our discursive thinking and cling to it as if it is real. “The ordinary men strain their eyes and ears (in order to distinguish between things). The ‘sacred man’, on the contrary, keeps his eyes and ears (free) like an infant.” The ordinary mind is disturbed by such thinking and cannot accurately reflect or engage reality. To shift from ordinary mind, we must move from its centrifugal tendency to the opposite: centripetal (some call this turning of the mind an orthogonal rotation). Thus, interior work comes into play (contemplation, meditation, prayer of the heart). We become “an individual embodiment of the Way having at (our) existential core the creative and vital force” or “spiritual energy.” We move to boundless openness.
—Knitter, Paul. “Hans Kung’s Theological Rubicon.” In Leonard Swidler (Ed.) Toward a Universal Theology of Religion. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987.
Knitter challenges Hans Kung to cross what Knitter perceives as Kung’s “theological Rubicon” by moving “from an earlier inclusivist position of viewing Christianity as the necessary fulfillment and norm for all religions, to a more pluralist model that affirms the possibility that other religions may be just as valid and relevant as Christianity.” In other words, that Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha are all “sons of God” and “prophets” and “awakened ones.”
—Knitter, Paul. “Pluralism and Oppression: Dialogue between the Many Religions and the Many Poor.” In Wayne Teasdale and George
Interreligious dialogue requires that ALL be present at the dialogue table; not just the professional theologians and representatives of the religions of the powerful. The poor, the oppressed, the earth herself must have a chair. Listening to and acting in alignment with those who suffer must take precedence over celebration of diversity on the agenda. To celebrate diversity, everyone must have an equal place at the table.We cannot have a theology of religions (interreligious dialogue) without a theology of liberation (socioecological liberation). The latter must have priority over the other.We do not have to look far to see both oppression and a need for interreligious dialogue. The two seem to go together, not mutually exclusive. I use our local university where the old-fashioned model of hierarchy, right, and privilege are still employed as an example. Under this model, there is a “top” administrator, “middle” management, and the “bottom” workers. The “religion” (values, beliefs, and thought structure) of the administrator is the dominant and official religion. The administrator hires middle management of the same “faith.” The workers (the ones who actually make the university function) are pressured to adopt or at least give lip service to the official religion. One does not wish to be branded as a heretic.If the official religion isolates itself and refuses to engage in interreligious dialogue (opening to creative input from the community of workers and, more than that, engaging in dialogue with), then it falls prey to imperialistic domination with all attendant dangers. Neither delight in diversity nor concern for oppression is in play.
—Kung, Hans. “Christianity and World Religions: Dialogue with Islam.” In Leonard Swidler (Ed.) Toward a Universal Theology of Religion. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987.
Kung, as a Christian theologian, affirms that Muhammad is a prophet, that the Qur’an is the Word of God (attendant with all the problems of any literal interpretation). He says that the Qur’an however gives a “weak, one-dimensional” portrayal of Jesus. Christians must take Muhammad and Muslims, Jesus, more seriously. He calls for us to “speak together as brothers and sisters.”
—Kung, Hans. “What Is True Religion? Toward an Ecumenical Criteriology.” In Leonard Swidler (Ed.) Toward a Universal Theology of Religion. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987.
True religion focuses on humanity and human rights. “This new humanity means a more radical humanity, which manifests itself in solidarity with fellow humanity, even with one’s enemy” (his italics). The more human a religion is, the more it is a true religion.
—Lanzetta, Beverly. Interreligious Scholarship: Toward a Post-Comparative Spiritual Hermeneutic. Unpublished paper.
—McFague, Sallie. Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age.
Chapter One: A New Sensibility
This chapter’s relevance to interreligious dialogue is in the implication that since theological writings and doctrines are metaphors, constructions of language, we would do well to (1) listen to each other’s metaphors, and, (2) encourage metaphors that more accurately fit a reality of cosmic interdependence.
Chapter Two: Metaphorical Theology
A metaphorical theology runs a risk of transformation or “destabilization” as it opens to other theologies and their metaphors. An interfertilization can occur. Inclusiveness leads to liveliness.
—Mitra, Kana. “Theologizing Through History.” In Leonard Swidler (Ed.) Toward a Universal Theology of Religion. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987.
Mitra briefly discusses the history of Hindu theology, pointing to the historical context helping shape the views of each Hindu theologian. She says we need more than just an historical outlook, in that the difference “between such theologians and the outstanding ones is that the latter have a greater sensitivity for the transcendent.”
—Panikkar, Raymond. “The Unknown Christ of Hinduism.”
Magnificent! Origin-al! The last two chapters of this book were Panikkar’s “partial fulfillment of the requirements to obtain the Doctorate in Sacred Theology.” I love this man and his insights. In our interreligious dialogue, we need to be converted to the other’s point of view, while solidly maintaining our own spiritual center. How radical! How practical! How real! One insight that came (not that Panikkar would necessarily state it this way) is that Christ is the bridge between the realms of the nondual and the dual. Hinduism does not invite other religions / spiritual paths, does not approach and invite in that way, is merely and deeply receptive. Christianity, however, is bold as a lion and goes over to visit and says, “While we exist in the nondual yet simultaneously approaching it, will you walk with me in the dual on this journey? Let’s walk in this fragmented world together, knowing that we have already reached our destination as we journey towards it.” Sounds like a bodhisattva path to me!
Panikkar: “The true encounter between Christianity and Hinduism is only possible where they really meet. And they do not really meet in the doctrinal sphere, but in another deeper stratum that could well be called the existential level, or the ‘ontic-intentional’ stratus.” This I get! The realm where meat meets meat, where energetic being meets energetic being, where spirit meets its own! And then he plays his trump card: “And here is our simple statement, the explanation of which, however, may not be so simple: Christianity and Hinduism both meet in Christ. Christ is their meeting-point. The real encounter can only take place in Christ, because only in Christ do they meet. We cannot ‘prove’ this statement rationally. We can only try to show, on the one hand that they do not meet at any other point, and that on the other hand, according to Christianity and according to Hinduism as well, they can only meet in Christ, if they meet at all.” The rest of the book is showing, from his point of view, how this is so. Panikkar also points out that interreligious dialogue is not for everyone: “Not everybody is bound to ‘meet’ everybody. There are very dangerous ‘meetings’. Not everyone is even capable—and much less obliged—to incarnate himself in another religion and redeem the authentic core of the latter.” Not all are called to be shaman theologians!
A few quotes from the book:
—“We meet in Christ; Christ is there in Hinduism, but Hinduism is not yet his spouse.”
—“The way to the living Christ is not precisely pure reasoning.”
—“The real Christian encounter with other religions requires a very special asceticism, the stripping off of all external garbs and forms to remain alone with Christ, with the naked Christ, dead and alive on the Cross, dead and alive within the Christian too who dares such an encounter with his non-Christian brother. That special kind of asceticism means real mysticism….”
—“It is an encounter in naked Faith, in pure Hope, in supernatural Love—and not a conflict of formulae”
—Panikkar, Raimundo. “The Invisible Harmony: A Universal Theory of Religion or a Cosmic Confidence in Reality.” In Leonard Swidler (Ed.) Toward a Universal Theology of Religion. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987.
Panikkar speaks from “the perspective of a metaphysical anthropology” and “not from a sociological or pragmatic viewpoint.” His view is that “every human being is a microcosm and every human culture represents the whole of humanity.” Panikkar moves beyond, sheds the clothes of the theologies created by human reason. While respecting the logos, he is “against” its “total dominion and a subordinationism of the Spirit.” He says that “a universal theory of whatever kind denies pluralism,” that one can “detect in this intent a latent will to dominate and a fear that if we do not make sense of everything we will lose our bearings and become vulnerable.” He is willing to trust (while engaging in dialogical dialogue) in the unfolding of the cosmos.
—Schachter, Zalman. “The Interior Path.” In Leonard Swidler (Ed.) Toward a Universal Theology of Religion. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987.
A refreshing (and brief) presentation. Some quotes: “Deep down, I am convinced that there is such a thing as generic religion, no-frills religion, which comes in a plain brown wrapper.” “If we are looking for an ultimate (language), we need the language and experience of mystics.” “For the ultimate we want the term Godhead rather than God.” “We throw it (universal religion) out the door, and it come in through the window; it keeps on saying, ‘Do something about how you talk together.’ “We are cautioned… not to drive along, looking in the rearview mirror.”
—Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. “Theology and the World’s Religious History.” In Leonard Swidler (Ed.) Toward a Universal Theology of Religion. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987.
Presents his thesis that “the history of religion…is the one true basis for theology.” He also states that “a study of history beings us closer to the truth than does science,” that “history can comprehend science, but science cannot comprehend history.” History is a study of both the mundane and the transcendent. His approach appears to be more intellectual with little room for the mystical.
—Swidler, Leonard. “Interreligious and Interideological Dialogue: The Matrix for All Systematic Reflection Today.” In Leonard Swidler (Ed.) Toward a Universal Theology of Religion. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987.
Swidler right away says he is not going to focus, in this paper, on the practical and the spiritual, but on the cognitive. Even though part of me (a significant part) immediately loses interest, I will gird up my intellectual loins and wade in. —Dialogue is not debate. Dialogue is open listening, while looking for understanding. Our integrity is at stake. —There are Ten Commandments (“ground rules”) on interreligious dialogue. (1) Openness to changing and growing “in the perception and understanding of reality” and acting accordingly, (2) Must be a mutual endeavor, (3) Honesty and sincerity, (4) No comparison of my ideals with the other’s practice, (5) All participants must define themselves, (6) Drop pre-judgments, (7) Dialogue is between equals, (8) Mutual trust, (9) Self-critical component needed, (10) Internal experience of other’s stance. —Dialogue must be spiritual and not just religious. — The development of an “Ecumenical Esperanto”, a common language of spirituality is suggested.
—Teasdale,
Teasdale’s term “interspirituality” points to a more productive focus, in my opinion, than does “interreligious.” The latter focus is more on thought form and structure, a secondary reality, in contrast to an interspiritual focus on primary reality, the lifeforce itself. Teasdale defines interspirituality as “the assimilation of insights, values, and spiritual practices from the various religions and their application to one’s own inner life and development.” Understanding, application, and practice! This is how we learn from each other. Mystical science. Feet on the ground, head in the sky. Cultivating the “inner womb of holiness” while living our daily lives.
I especially appreciate Teasdale’s use of the term “capacity.” Capacity, or room, is both a gift and an active development. Seven capacities are seen as essential to interspiritual and interreligious dialogue: openness, presence, listening, being, seeing, spontaneity, and (my personal favorite) joy.
—Yandell, Keith. Some Varieties of Religious Pluralism. In J. Kellenberger (ed.), Inter-Religious Models and Criteria
A highly philosophical and persuasive read. Part of what I get from it is that if I consider myself a member of a particular religious tradition, and am a religious pluralist, if I am honest, I have to admit that I have no logical ground for belief in my tradition "that favor that belief over its contradictory and contrary beliefs." If I am outside any religious tradition, I have little trouble in admitting this. If I am inside a religious tradition, and not a religious pluralist, I will have great difficulty in admitting this. As I understand it, Yandell's thesis gets down to "I believe this because it works for me." Yandell indicates it is a vehicle one chooses to ride to "moral sainthood." The vehicle I personally choose to ride (or which chose me), the warrior-mystic vehicle, is one of practicality (meaning it involves a practice and it "works"). Feet on the ground, head in the heavens, centering in this being, opening to infinity, no enemy except what I devise, being breathed with what feels like lovingkindness, facing and dealing with all arising, living in and as this eternal now. Images arise and disappear. Clinging to none. Empty and full. Full and empty. Feeling suffering. Feeling joy. I ride this warrior-mystic vehicle all the way. I AM this vehicle.
No comments:
Post a Comment