III. THINKING ABOUT
INTERFAITH DIALOGUES IN THE CONDITIONS OF OUR PRESENT SOCIETY
We have just glanced at events of interfaith dialogues in the
world as well as in Vietnam
1. First, we can completely agree with the organiser on the
following statement: “Interfaith
dialogues are also regarded as a solution to reduce religious conflicts,
contributing to maintaining peace and stability in many places in the world.” This
judgement does not differ from the common wish of multinational interfaith
dialogues held in the 19th and 20th centuries.
2. Second, the organiser asks, “In our present situation, what role should the State play in dialogues
amongst religions?”
a. We certainly remember that responsible authorities have often
been haunted by the term “interfaith”. They are biased towards the
misconception that an interfaith activity is barely a political plot hatched by
two or more religions so as to ruin the social order. Accordingly, as far as
the State is concerned, such a watchful attitude should be given up. Once it is
given up, the responsible organs will treat any interfaith dialogue as an
ordinary activity carried out in a certain city by a certain religion, university,
or centre for religious studies; in other words, there will be neither
restriction nor hindrance, etc.
b. Interfaith dialogues require participants to be professional
or experienced enough. Those who are good at Comparative Religion will help
interfaith dialogues become more fruitful. As we know, as of the mid-20th
century till now, Comparative Religion has been taught at the tertiary level in
the Occident. So, our universities should consult their experience and the
State should support them in this new branch of learning.
3. Third, the organiser asks, “As for religions, what should interfaith dialogues include? What
practical and essential basis should a process of interfaith dialogues rely
upon?”
Despite their diverse manifestations, as we know, religions
do share something in common. Consequently, interfaith dialogues should
highlight the similarities amongst religions so as to build up, strengthen, and
develop their mutual sympathy, respect, and cooperation. On the other hand,
whichever diversities that might cause misunderstanding, separation, or hatred,
etc. should be skilfully and cautiously dealt with during dialogues.
For instance, in Buddhist literature, the Sanskrit or Pali
term devas refers to non-human beings
who live in the best state of existence, enjoy extreme happiness, and have very
long lifespans; however, they remain subject to samsara.
In Chinese Buddhist literature, deva is translated as tiān
天 (heaven), but it is
obvious that its meaning entirely differs from that of Heaven/God, as conceived by Confucian, Daoist, and Caodai
adherents. In other words, a deva is
similar to a god and irrelevant to
God.
Then, due to a certain reason, a Buddhist follower neglects
the homonym between tiān/deva and Tiān/Heaven/God so as to deduce that Tiān [Heaven, God] is inferior to Buddha
because tiān [deva] remains subject
to samsara while Buddha is free from reincarnation (sic). Such a deduction is not altogether beneficial to interfaith
dialogues aimed at living in harmony,
mutual respect and cooperation.
4. Fourth, the organiser asks, “What should religions prepare when joining interfaith dialogues?”
As for intellectual knowledge, we see that when joining
interfaith dialogues, religions are supposed to appreciate beautiful features
as well as true values of others. Next, each religion is expected to be humble
and willing to listen to others. By saying “humble”, we mean true humility, not
at all conceit in disguise.
Joining an interfaith dialogue, every participant should have
goodwill to discover the best parts of one another so as to weave a piece of beautiful
brocade decorated with attractive embroidery which is to be dedicated to this
world. In the words of Saint Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians (13:1), every participant in an interfaith dialogue
should not incautiously turn into a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal only
because of his eagerness to dominate other participants.
Perhaps, when joining interfaith
dialogues, we should also keep in mind Pope Francis’s speech to Turkish
President Erdogan in Ankara on 28 November 2014, “Such a dialogue will allow us to reflect sensibly and serenely on our
differences, and to learn from them.”
[1]
A serene attitude is indispensable because it helps
religionists get rid of their own conceited mentality. Three years ago, I was
invited to attend an interfaith meeting in a southern big city. It was held by
one of the big religions, which is conditionally named religion A. Amongst the
then delegates were dignitaries of other religions. As scheduled, a female adherent
of religion A was invited to the stand, where she emotionally recounted how her
mother-in-law had ill-treated her despite her willing efforts to observe a daughter-in-law’s
duties in a family following religion B, another big one. In the end, she could
win the heart of not only that harsh woman but also the rest of her household. Furthermore,
they abandoned religion B and joined her faith, religion A. That day, amidst
her audience were several dignitaries of religion B. I think that her
presentation should not have been chosen for an interfaith meeting.
5. Fifth, the organiser asks,
“In what scope are religious values expected
to flourish alongside secular ones in order to serve human life?”
Archie John Bahm (1907-1996)
was an American professor of philosophy and comparative religion at the
University of New Mexico (America). In his book entitled The World’s Living Religions (New York: Dell pub., 1964, p. 135), a quotation from Professor P.T. Raju, formerly Dean of the Faculty of
Philosophy at Rajasthan University (India), was cited as “... despite all their differences, religions have something in common,
namely, man.”
Man, or his happiness and secure
existence, is the common concern of true religions as well as regimes of the
people, by the people, and for the people. Thus, religious values can entirely
flourish alongside secular ones in order to serve human life if both religious
and secular institutions take humanistic
values, well-being, progress as both the stable foundation and the throughout
orientation for every plan or scheme of action. (According to Caodai teaching, humanistic values, well-being, progress are
the trinity inseparable for the sustainable development of every society.)
6. Finally, the organiser
asks, “In order to ensure effective and
harmonial interfaith dialogues, how important are such elements as tolerance, humaneness,
thorough understanding, spirit of engagement, and cooperative willingness?”
As we see, such virtues as tolerance, humaneness, thorough
understanding, spirit of engagement, and cooperative willingness will
decide the satisfactory result of every interfaith dialogue. Lacking those
virtues, participants will possibly turn constructive dialogues into
destructive oppositions.
Interfaith dialogues are
extremely subtle conversations. Although participants are of the same mother
tongue, once their interfaith dialogues commence, it seems that they are
speaking different languages. Each unfamilar term or conception will result in
misunderstanding. Accordingly, thorough
understanding is indispensable. Besides, amongst religions exist differences
resulting from various historical and cultural backgrounds where those
religions have originated; however, adherents of diverse faiths are not to
exclude one another because of religious diversities. Therefore, tolerance, humaneness are two virtues that
help adherents of diverse faiths patiently accept one another so that they can cooperate with one another.
IV. IN LIEU OF A CONCLUSION
While the temporal society remains eager to get
involved in disputes or struggles, religions should be more active and positive
to cooperate harmoniously with one another so as to solve those disputes or
struggles together. Otherwise, religions fail to fulfill their missions. Well-known
for its religious tolerance, Caodaism advocates, “All teachings have the same principle.” Its teaching asserts, “... existing religions are still
involved in struggles or disputes, they have not yet established a genuine
entity of salvation.” [2]
Effective and faultless
interfaith dialogues will possibly contribute to solving religious conflicts. This
is a long journey requiring each religious adventurer to willingly step out of
his own egoism to contact other religions open-heartedly.
By asserting that interfaith
dialogue is a long journey, we mean this workshop held by Institute for
Religious Studies should not terminate after the organiser’s closing
declaration. This Institute can “nourish” the workshop result by utilising its
present Religious Studies magazine as
a periodic interfaith dialogue forum, where enthusiastic religious and
non-religious authors are invited to contribute their writings.
Phú Nhuận, 19 August 2015
HUỆ KHẢI
