Between October 23 and 29, 1995, the third Bishops' Institute of the series concerned with religious harmony (BIRA V/3), organized by the FABC Office of Ecumenical and Interreligious affairs, was held at the Indian Social Institute in New Delhi, India. Planned as a Hindu-Christian encounter, the seminar followed upon similar earlier meetings with Muslims and Buddhists. The 65 participants were almost equally divided between Christians and Hindus, coming from seven countries: Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Thailand.
        The theme of the seminar, "Working for Harmony in the Contemporary World," explored the religious resources for building harmony in society found in the Christian and Hindu traditions.
        The Hindu speakers developed the theme of the Upanishads and the Indian Sages that all human concepts and approaches to the Divine are considered partial and in themselves incomplete. It is only in God that apparently irreconcilable concepts find their resolution. On this basis, Hindu scholars conclude that, whereas all religions are not the same and that essential differences exist among the various religions of this world, these differences need not divide humanity into mutually antagonistic camps.
        The Christian speakers built on the thought of Nicholas of Cusa and his concept of coincidentia oppositorum, "the concurrence of opposites." Human reason, operating according to the principles of logic, can go only so far in approaching an understanding of God. However, through intuition, the mystics can arrive at an immediate experience of God, in whom all contradictory concepts coincide. This understanding can provide the basis for Christians to enter into dialogue and cooperation with the followers of other religions. With the realization that at the human level contrary forms of belief and expressions of religiosity will continue to exist, Christians in dialogue with other religious believers can work to attain better understanding of and respect for differences and to establish patterns of harmonious living in religiously plural societies.
        In a final statement, the participants outlined the areas of disharmony as well as the signs of harmony in modern Asia, sought to arrive at a common formulation of what harmony is and is not, and made joint recommendations on practical steps that Christians and Hindus could take to build harmony in society.

Introduction

        As one of the most ancient religious traditions of humanity, Hinduism has searched for the "permanent" (nityam), "the immortal" (amritam) "the real" (satyam), "the One without a second" (ekam eva advitiyam) that underlies visible existence. It has tried to find the underlying oneness of all things. It has been a collective search in the sense that, when we speak of Hinduism,[1] we refer to diverse socio - religio - ethno - culture groups, manifesting, nonetheless, unity.[2] Indians themselves call this gamut of collective search, the sanatana dharma, i.e., Eternal Truth. It has been a challenge for Christians to dialogue with this complex, all-comprehensive, apparently contradictory, and seemingly syncretistic religion.
        In this paper, I would like to take stock of Hindu-Christian relations in general which have occurred until our day, so that, as a believing Christian, I may be able to: 1) evaluate critically the efforts made to promote Hindu-Christian dialogue; 2) suggest a different model for continuing Hindu-Christian dialogue; and 3) encourage all of us to face the challenges, with new vigor, on the sacred path of sarva dharma maitri (respect and friendship among all religious traditions), despite the difficulties. But before that allow me to say a word about, how I, from my bhumika (a perspective from the Christian tradition), understand interreligious dialogue, so that my intentions, articulated with the use of words, may be treated by this august audience generously and compassionately.
        The commonly accepted expression "interreligious dialogue" is of recent origin and is most familiar to Christian believers, Although the reality signified by this expression exists among Hindus, a corresponding word (literally translated) does not make much sense in the context of Indian languages. Sarva dharma sama bhava, an expression used frequently by the Indians, poses certain serious difficulties because it tends to conclude that "all religions are the same as all rivers lead to the ocean"; or "it is not important which religion one follows because they all lead to God as all paths lead to the summit," etc. Although this expression may point to the "ultimate harmony" in the search for the Absolute Mystery of life,[3] one cannot deny the danger of a relativism diffused by it. An expression which is gaining popularity today is sarva dharma maitri, "spiritual friendship," among all religions. This would be perhaps the expression that comes closest to what is understood by "interreligious dialogue" in Christian circles.
        Interreligious dialogue includes both witness to one's own faith and the exploration of the respective religious convictions of others. The fundamental functions of interreligious dialogue are: 1) to know each other better, to dispel fears and misinterpretations; 2) mutual influence and fecundation; 3) positive contribution to new self-understanding on both sides. The Church encourages interreligious dialogue, in accord with the specific guidelines set down by the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) in its declaration Nostra Aetate on the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions. In the ultimate analysis, interreligious dialogue is a sacred act. As the present Pope has said: "By dialogue we let God be present in our midst; for as we open ourselves in dialogue to one another, we also open ourselves to God."[4]
        A correct theological evaluation of the religious traditions 'Of the dialoguing partner(s), at least in general terms, is a necessary presupposition for interreligious dialogue. But dialogue, which can be practised in different forms,[5] is not to be limited to intellectual discussion; the need to dialogue among religions can be felt for various reasons which may be theological or practical.[6] For example, a desire for peace in the world may urge all religions to come together.[7] But as such, interreligious dialogue is not an exercise to be practised only in times of crisis.

Motives For Hindu-Christian Dialogue

        One can speak of Hindu-Christian dialogue, pointing to the initiative coming sometimes from Hindus and sometimes from Christians. it is also possible to speak of Hindu-Christian dialogue at the official, institutional level (mainly a Christian effort), or at the individual level. One can further speak of Hindu-Christian dialogue at a particular period in history as both religions, especially Hinduism, have undergone significant inner and outer development. Efforts in Hindu-Christian dialogue have been both direct and indirect, organized, systematic and also spontaneous, haphazard and coincidental.[8]
        The Christian motive for dialogue with Hindus has often been the "missionary mandate";[9] whereas, in most cases, the Hindu motive for dialogue with Christians has often been the tendency to claim the all-comprehensiveness and all-inclusiveness of Hinduism; for it understands itself as a harmony of all search for the absolute truth and a tradition that is open and tolerant of others.[10] It must be said that the inevitable contact with Christianity through the colonial context since the sixteenth century accelerated Hinduism's dialogue with Christianity.[11] Concern for reform, which was the leitmotif of the Hindu renaissance, runs through Indian history as far back as the Upanishads. What is new in the renaissance is largely a concept forced onto India from the outside. However, it is Vatican Council II which will set a clear direction to many Christians for a systematic, fruitful and ongoing Hindu-Christian dialogue.[12]
        In its brief text on Hinduism Nostra Aetate[13] speaks exclusively of fundamental differences and does not directly mention any possible similarity Christianity could have with Hinduism. Moreover, the text refers only to classical Hinduism, as if calling the dialoguing partners to an intel-lectual discussion, and thereby restricting interreligious dialogue to mere dialectics.[14] It is my contention that, in fact, such Hindu-Christian dialogue has multiplied since Vatican II, and as a result of this, there is no dearth of serious reflection, at least among Christian theologians.[15] This is perhaps because popular Hinduism was seen as idolatry, error and superstition, while philosophical Hinduism was looked upon as containing ideas on a level with Western philosophical and religious concepts.

The Divine Mystery: Point of Convergence and Divergence

        Salvation was and still is very much the central issue in Hindu-Christian dialogue. The question of salvation is inseparably linked with the question of God; and I think belief in him is the easiest, and at the same time the most difficult, starting point in Hindu-Christian dialogue. It is the easiest starting point because Hinduism is saturated with a rich and profound reflection on the existence, nature and the presence of God. Hinduism speaks of the practice to reach God in innumerable ways. But the question of God is also the most difficult starting point for dialogue with Hinduism because of its (Hinduism's) ambivalent, syncretistic and absorbing nature. In its dialogue with Hinduism, how does Christianity understand the Mystery of the Absolute? Does he exist or is he beyond all existence? Is he essentially One or Many? Is he Personal, Impersonal, Suprapersonal, Transpersonal? Hinduism, in the final analysis, admits that all systems are inadequate to confirm the Mystery of God, and thus lives with an attitude towards the Absolute Mystery which affirms simultaneously that God is and is not, he is both and he is neither; he is the only real, all else being Maya (illusion), He is the Womb (Yoni), the Source (Brahma), the Preserver (Vishnu) and the Fulfillment of all that exists (Shiva). Consequently, within Hinduism each of these positions vis-à-vis the Absolute Mystery would have an elaborate living tradition, a religion, a church (sampradaya), whatever one wishes to call it.
        The One Brahman is conceived and symbolized according to divine functions as Brahma (the Creator), Vishnu (the Sustainer-Preserver) and Shiva (the Destroyer of evils and the Dissolver of the universe). Within the great Tradition of Hinduism are four main, living sub-traditions (sampradayas): 1. Shaivism, 2. Vaishnavism, 3. Shaktas and 4. Smartas. The differences are based upon conceptions and worship of the central name, form, symbols, liturgies, mythologies and theologies of the One God, Lord and the Highest Person, as Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti (Divine as Mother), etc. Smartas worship, equally, several personal manifestations of the Supreme Reality and philosophically emphasize the ultimate identity-experience of the individual self with the Supreme Self, which is also Brahman.
        For Hinduism, the Christian understanding of the Absolute God as Trinitarian Mystery is acceptable, valid, unique, and real. In that sense Christianity, according to Hinduism, is also a Church (sampradayas). Hinduism sees different historical religions in the world as simple expressions of many possible variations of the infinite thirst in the heart of the human person. Seen from this perspective of Hinduism, the Christian understanding of God is, nonetheless, one among many possible understandings of the Absolute Mystery of God. In fact, there are those who see such theistic notions, of God as Personal, to be a lower level of truth. Most religions are seen by them as a source of discord and retardation, given their tendency to degenerate to ceremonial ritual and fixed dogma. To progress, they say, one must renounce religions, including Christianity and Hinduism.[16] With such a starting point, the Christian partner in dialogue could almost feel frustrated. if not betrayed.
        The question of God as the revealed Absolute Mystery is of fundamental importance to Christianity. Moreover, this God is doctrinally well-defined in Christianity, which is believed to be always guided by the light of God's revelation in history. This revealed God for Christians is the object of faith; not to adhere culpably to this definitively revealed God in Jesus Christ, or to accept any other, is not only to forfeit one's salvation, but also to commit a mortal transgression of disloyalty against this Supreme God.
        Why then does Christianity want to dialogue, not only with Hindu-ism, but also with other religions? Nostra Aetate, and the subsequent official teaching of the Church, is clear on the necessity for Christianity to dialogue with other religions. 1) Recognition that today, almost everywhere, people of different beliefs have to live together; interreligious dialogue -the term embraces all proper forms of relations across religious frontiers - is therefore for the Catholic Church a normal way of living and working in areas where there are other believers. 2) The common origin and destiny - "all people comprise a single community and have a single origin, since God made the whole race of men dwell over the entire face of the earth; one also is their final goal - God... (The Church) looks with sincere respect upon (the people of other religions), their ways of conduct and of life, their rules and teachings which, though differing in many particulars from what she holds and sets forth, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men."[17] 3) The Semina Verbi ("seeds of the Word") and the "presence of the Holy Spirit" are in all creation. The Church acknowledges that many elements of truth can be found outside her visible structure. 4) The raison d'etre of the Mystery of the Church is to promote and realize the unity of all humankind. "By her relationship with Christ, the Church is a kind of sacrament or sign of intimate union with God, and of the unity of all mankind. She is also an instrument for the achievement of such union and unity."[18] 5) Common search for Truth revealed in Jesus Christ - " … the fullness of truth received in Jesus Christ does not give individual Christians the guarantee that they have grasped that truth fully. In the last analysis truth is not a thing we possess, but a person by whom we must allow ourselves to be possessed. This is an unending process."[19] 6) Christian revelation of the Divine Mystery is dialogical in its essence. The history of salvation is the history of dialogue between God and man. Following this theology, Christians have initiated, promoted and continued interreligious dialogue also with Hinduism.
        The ultimate concern of the human person in Hinduism is not the belief in and the worship of God per se but primarily a liberation (moksha) of the Self. According to Hinduism, liberation is the supreme goal of one's life. Thus, Hinduism is never felt to depend on the existence or non-existence of God.[20] It is pursuing the question of liberation (moksha). All of Hinduism, directly or indirectly, essentially concerns itself with the question of the Absolute Mystery or the Ultimate Truth of life as it is seen to affect the human being. Life as experienced is essentially understood as Brahman, i.e, satyasa satyam.[21] "All this, whatever moves in this moving universe, is permeated and inhabited by Brahman, enveloped by Brahman" (Isha Upanishad, 1,6,9). Nothing is prior to or beyond Brahman (Satpatha Brahman, X, 3,5,10-11). Brahman is neither "this" nor "that"; it is only the unlimited. The quest for Brahman can never be the quest for an object; rather, it is the quest for the origin of the questioner himself. It is not an object of vision, speech, thought or worship (K. Upanishad, 1, 1-9). Generally, Hinduism makes a neat and clear distinction between the aspects of the One Brahman: Nirguna Brahman (Apophatic-Higher Reality), and Saguna Brahman (Kataphatic-Lower Reality) or the Unseen, the Unmanifest, and the Seen or the Manifest. It is affirmed that the Absolute is One (ekam eva advitiya, Chandogya Upanishad VI, 1,1); the absolute Oneness of the supreme reality is unequivocally affirmed by the Upanishads.[22] It is indivisible but is practically spoken of in its noumenal and phenomenal forms (nama-rupa), or according to its spiritual (paramartha) and practical (vyavaharika) implications. While experience of Nirguna Brahman can be had only through a veiled perspective (maya), he can be beholden in his innumberable appearances (avatara). In other words, God as HE IS cannot be the direct object of experience but he can be reached through his APPEARANCE. Consequently, the essential nature of man and creation is also illusory and symbolic. Thus, in a certain sense, all THEO-logy is symbolic in Hinduism. Words, concepts and images about God do not correspond to the reality of Supreme God and have no absolute significance. They are always relative.[23] In the final analysis, Hinduism understands all experiences of God as real,[24] because reality itself is relatively (relationally) knowable. Liberation, thus, consists in the realization that one is Brahman, Nirguna-Saguna, i.e., aham Brahman asmi.[25]
        From the Christian point of view, the Supreme Mystery of God is the fully "revealed Word of the Father," and he is "omnipresent through the Holy Spirit." The Christian claim is that the Invisible, the Unmanifest Absolute Mystery of God, is fully and in a definite manner revealed and manifested in Jesus Christ.[26] Jesus Christ could then be seen inevitably and inseparably linked to the Mystery of the Absolute God sought for in Hinduism.[27] It its dialogue with Hinduism, therefore, it is possible for the Christian to see that through Christ, the Second Person of the Trinitarian Mystery of God, the Absolute Mystery of God is basically plural, as Hinduism also affirms that the Absolute Mystery is basically plural. One of the most ancient texts in Hinduism says: ekam sad viparah bahudah vadanti.[28] Between Christianity and Hinduism, Jesus Christ, the Manifest (Epiphany), thus becomes the common term that simultaneously purifies, qualifies and affirms the pluralistic Mystery of the Absolute God.[29]
        The mystery of the incarnation is fundamental to the Christian faith. Consequently, the nature of creation is absolute in Christian doctrine, because "the Word became flesh" (John 1, 14). Salvation is not given to man outside creation. In other words, one achieves one's salvation in creation as creatures. Hinduism, on the other hand, sees the phenomenal world or creation as having no constancy and permanency in itself. It is spoken of as a lila (entertainment), or krida (sport), or maya (illusion) of the Absolute Mystery. Consequently, the births and deaths of all things, including human beings, are to be understood in reference to lila, krida, or maya. Creation, thus, appears and disappears, having no permanency, thereby playing no determinative role in the salvation of creatures. There is also no reality attributed to heaven or hell in Hinduism; they are spoken of on a mythic level. The world is a karmabhumi, world of action, where souls can acquire merits or demerits, and in relation to this the other worlds are considered as bhogbhumi, worlds of retribution, where according to one's merits or demerits, one enjoys or suffers. However, one does find inter-pretations of sacred texts which speak of creation as the "manifestation of the Absolute God" (chidvilasavad in certain branches of Shaivism). Yet this notion would be also far from attributing to creation any absolute value.
        Depending on how the Divine Mystery is seen in the Hindu-Christian dialogue, other fundamental questions, such as the relationship between the Christian concept of incarnation and the Hindu idea of avatara, the Christian doctrine of resurrection and the Hindu idea of reincarnation, the Christian commitment to the world and the Hindu ideal of detachment from the world, etc., would become clearer, at least, as starting points for further mutually-enriching reflections.

Need to Invent A Model For Hindu-Christian Dialogue

        The Hindu-Christian dialogue seems to have received less attention in our time, when compared with the emphasis given by the Church to the Islamic-Christian or Judaic-Christian dialogue.[30] While that may be true for several reasons, it must be said that the subtle but actual fact of Hindu-Christian dialogue should not be underestimated. However, it seems logical that the Hindu-Christian dialogue cannot proceed in the same way as the Jewish-Christian or the Muslim-Christian dialogue. We need to invent a different model for it. The Indian tradition, particularly in the Upanishads, speaks of a holistic approach to reality and emphasizes the principle of identity. Following upon this, the Ultimate Reality is said to be "that which is most common, most present everywhee, most immanent, most identical to itself and identical to everything to which any identity can be applied and affirmed: Brahman." It is my contention that this way of thinking, based on the principle of identity will be of help, at least for mutual understanding and towards a fruitful Hindu-Christian dialogue.[31]
        The primal Vedic concept of rta, i.e., cosmic order - "that which is right and proper in the universe and in human society" - is central to the mechanics of Hindu understanding. It "directs towards the quest for harmony, towards a morality of responsibility to the divine order apparent in all that exists."[32] It is a dynamic principle of order and integration which sees diversity in Reality as ultimate unity. Through this concept Hindus try to transcend, if not reconcile, opposites, instead of ignoring or denying them. Truth is seen as an intrinsic part of rta. The ultimate harmony symbolized by rta is not a fixed physical or mathematical law but a sacrificial order, because rta is inseparably linked with sacrifice, the quintessence of the Veda.[33]

Difficulties in Hindu-Christian Dialogue

        Hinduism is not an institutional religion, in the sense that it has no central governing authority justified by doctrines or theologies.[34] "Who do you dialogue with?" is always an intriguing dilemma before the Church, which sees interreligious dialogue as an exercise that is well disciplined, with definite set goals, and with clearly contoured guidelines. For many a Hindu the Church and the revealed divine mystery in Jesus Christ are two interrelated but completely separate things. They fail to understand that for Christians the Church is not merely a socio-historical reality[35] but a divinely instituted reality, inseparable from the Living Christ, offered to the world as the ordinary means of salvation. Like the Hindu reformers of early 20th century, many Hindus today continue to initiate and carry on an intense dialogue with Christ and his gospel on a personal level, without feeling any need to take recourse to the visible Church.[36]
        Dialogue with Hinduism has become difficult also because of certain revivalist movements[37] which try to include vast masses of people under their banner by forcing them to profess a comprehensive kind of Hinduism as their religion, and thereby creating a majority-minority syndrome among one people. Religion, thus, becomes politicized and is used as a sanction to carry out violent atrocities: "To use religion as an excuse for injustice and violence is a terrible abuse, and it must be condemned by all true believers in God ... There can be no genuine peace unless believers stand together in rejecting the politics of hate and discrimination, in offering the right to religion and cultural freedom in all human societies."[38]
        Christianity has its starting point in the Incarnation of the Word. Consequently, Christianity gives absolute value to salvation history. God's intervention and action cannot be understood outside an historical perspective. Thus, history becomes the norm and the reference point for Christians to understand themselves. "The economy of the Old Testament, in fact, was essentially ordered to preparing and proclaiming the coming of Christ, the Redeemer of the universe, and of his messianic Kingdom. The Books of the Old Covenant are thus a permanent witness to a careful divine pedagogy."[39] With a radically contrasting concept of history, the Hindu-Christian dialogue comes to a complete stop. Here again, we need to prescind from the Semitic model in order to make space for the Hindu understanding of time and space.[40]
        The problem of caste and its terrible consequences is a religious problem, and one must give up the hope of it being solved by Political solutions. Moreover, "the evil of caste exists among all Indians."[41] It is a common issue that concerns both Hinduism and Christianity and needs to be taken up urgently in the Hindu-Christian dialogue.
        It is a common notion among Hindus that dialogue seems to be a cover under which Christians want to convert Hindus and increase their numbers. Initiative for dialogue has not come from Hindus because of the fear of proselytism and conversion.[42]
        I submit that there has been a great deal of misunderstanding in this question of conversion. The theme of conversion is viewed in a radically different way by Christians and Hindus. In most cases, following a cue from Mahatma Gandhi, who was a persistent advocate of religious toleration and an opponent of conversion (understood as a change of religious community), Hindus oppose conversion. It must be admitted that Mahatma Gandhi's dialogue with Christianity took place, almost exclusively, within a colonial context in which mass conversions from one religion to another had serious political implications. The political context of Hindu-Christian dialogue in India has changed dramatically since the independence of India, and so the Hindu attitude towards the question of conversion should also change.
        Conversion in Christianity is generally understood both in its wider sense and in its specific sense: "Included in the idea of conversion there is always a general movement towards God... more specifically, conversion may refer to a change of religious adherence, and particularly to embracing the Christian faith."[43] In its wider sense, within the context of dialogue, conversion is seen as a mutual transformation between dialoguing partners of various religions, since in such a dialogue all are expected to convert to truth.[44] With regard to its particular sense, it must be said that all movement towards conversion is ultimately prompted by the Spirit. "Conversion is a gift of God … it is the Spirit who opens people's hearts …" [45] This is why "the Church strictly forbids forcing anyone to embrace the faith, or alluring or enticing people by unworthy techniques."[46]  This is further stressed by the Church when it says: "No one must be constrained to act against his conscience, nor ought he be impeded in acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."[47]
        The themes of inculturation and justice[48] form an inseparable part of the Hindu-Christian dialogue. Many older converts to Christianity have their cultural roots in Indian culture, which is inseparably linked to Hinduism, because a strict dichotomy between culture and religion is strange to Hinduism. Material poverty, human misery and an attitude of indifference towards suffering could be seen as a possible result of a certain religious perspective on creation.
        Despite the seemingly irreconcilable challenges I have enumerated in this paper, the Hindu-Christian dialogue has undoubtedly enriched the Church since the publication of the Nostra Aetate of Vatican II. However vitiated by politics, today religion is blamed as the cause of all troubles, and there seems to be a psychosis of fear that has often slowed down Hindu-Christian dialogue. Richard Taylor describes realistically the situation of the Hindu-Christian dialogue, when he says, "there are few who promote it, a number who oppose it and many who avoid it." While it is true that the rise and spread of fundamentalism, especially present through cults and new religious movements, have questioned the motive for inter-religious dialogue and have dampened inerreligious relations between Christianity and Hinduism, the Hindu-Christian dialogue must never lose sight of the tradition as a whole in both religions. The phenomenon of sects and new religious movements today should not be seen as applying uncritically to all of Hinduism or to all of Christianity. As I have argued above, a single Hinduism as such does not exist; there are only living and separated traditions, sampradayas, and such like. Dialogue with Hinduism is not possible except through sampradayas. Hinduism is like a people with many different languages. One simply cannot communicate with this people except through their different languages.
        Let us not forget that "Hinduism contains within itself so many paradoxes, anomalies and apparent contradictions that the unwary student may, by studying only one Hindu tradition, construct for himself an entirely false picture of the nature of Indian religions."[49]
        While we must act with prudence, of course, the Hindu-Christian dialogue needs to receive greater attention. The Church's commitment to dialogue possesses something original, since, as the history of religions testifies, the plurality of religions has often given rise to, discrimination and jealously, fanaticism and despotism, all of which drew on religion the accusation of being a source of division in the human family. The Church, "universal sacrament of salvation," i.e., "sign and instrument of the unity of all the human race, is called by God to be the minister and instrument of unity in Jesus Christ for all men and all peoples."[50]

Challenges in Hindu-Christian Dialogue

        All interreligious dialogue is difficult because "any authentic dialogue is a search for truth." The Hindu-Christian dialogue is no exception to this fact. Let us admit that in spite of sharing common Semitic roots with Judaism and Islam,[51] history shows that Christianity's dialogue with these two religious traditions has been far from an easy one, It is true that Christianity shares a common world-view with these religions, uses mutually comprehensible terminology, refers to one notion of history, and alludes to a collectively accepted symbolism. Yet, the task of building friendly relations among these Abrahamic religions has been a difficult one. Thus, one could only imagine how difficult and challenging will be interreligious dialogue between Christianity and Hinduism. Moreover, "both Hindus and Christians still have to overcome mutual suspicions and heal wounds of the past."[52] "That (interreligious) dialogue is a permanent Christian obligation" has unfortunately not yet been registered in many a Christian's mentality. "Interreligious dialogue is part of the Church's evangelizing mission,"[53] and yet neither "mission" nor "interreligious dialogue" seems to be the practice of many.[54] Attitudinal clichés of superiority, exclusivism, and absolutism still form an implicit part of the modus operandi of many. The language of dialogue is often used, but the basic thinking re-mains as of old. Negative stereotypes of Christianity by Hindus and negative stereotypes of Hinduism by Christians need to disappear if we are to begin a serious dialogue. East equals Indian equals Hindu, and West equals Europe equals Christian, with the former politically and economically subservient to the latter, are harmful attitudes to begin Hindu-Christian dialogue. Of course, we cannot understimate the burden of long-standing misgivings inherited from the past, the mutual misunderstandings and prejudices, complacency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another, which have often made the situation worse.
        At a deeper level, Christian dialogue with Hinduism is most challenging, because in a certain sense Hinduism is inaccessible; it is a complex mass of religious systems, a mosaic of probably all known forms of religion. It has a philosophy which is detailed, and expressed through rich and precise concepts. It has developed social structures and rich traditions. And paradoxically, one can claim to find superstitious beliefs in Hinduism.[55] Basically, faith in the Vedas (infallible Truth), karma-samsara (belief in transmigration), and mukti (conviction of final liberation), on the one hand, and observance of vamashrama dharma (rule of life to live according to one's own caste), on the other hand, constitute Hindu dharma. In one's efforts to dialogue with Hinduism a Christian is called to a formidable task: for, on the one hand, one should not easily give in to the temptation of condemning all Hinduism as syncretism, and on the other hand, one should guard against the danger of bowing down before all Hinduism as the "Great Unfathomable Mystery."

Conclusion

        Conscious of her divine vocation and without compromise to her essence, the Church advocates an honest and sincere dialogue among all religions. She considers interreligious dialogue an imperative, a necessary and essential attitude of religion, and above all, of Christianity. She sees other religions as a positive challenge to an important aspect of her vocation, i.e., the unity of the human family.
        Interreligious dialogue includes both a witness to one's own faith and an openness to understanding the faith of the other. It also presupposes a commitment to one's own faith and an attempt to acquire an accurate knowledge of the other's faith. It means not only discussion, but also includes all positive and constructive interreligious, relations with individuals and communities of other faiths which are directed to mutual understanding and enrichment. Thus, interreligious dialogue is not an exercise to which we have recourse only in a situation of crisis, but must become a constant practice among believers, especially when relations among them are cordial and friendly. "Dialogue does not originate from tactical concerns of self interest, but is an activity with its own guiding principles, requirements and dignity. It is demanded by deep respect for everything that has been brought about in human beings by the Spirit who blows where it wills."[56]
        Granted their fundamental differences, both Hinduism and Christianity consider the Absolute Mystery of God as the center of existence. Daring to go deeper into all questions concerning God the Hindu-Christian dialogue must confront fundamental similarities and differences concerning God, and concerning soteriology, i.e., who saves man and how? It is to be admitted that Hinduism is rich and profound in its reflection about the Mystery of God and in its concrete suggestions to attain union with him. Yet, it is also true that there is much ambivalence; and there is also a tendency to absorb all other traditions of humanity. The Christian "notion of fulfillment," and the doctrine of Jesus Christ as Unique and Universal Savior, need to be presented in such a way that it is not perceived as an ideology that divides and disrupts society. In other words, a reformulation of this central Christian doctrine, resulting from a genuine Hindu-Christian dialogue, is needed. One must be careful and guard against the temptation to extrapolate. In Hinduism reflection on God has taken place without having the Christian concept of God in mind. Therefore, references to God in Hindu theology must not be read in the light of the Christian idea of God. Similarly, Christian theology must refrain from applying the Christian idea of God to Hindu reflection on God, and consequently to judge and condemn it. Thus, hopefully much light can be shed on other fundamental questions of mutual concern such as avatara, rebirth, creation, salvation, incarnation, resurrection, etc.
        On the one hand, Christians need to understand that a single Hindu-ism does not exist; there are only living and separated traditions, sampradayas, and such. On the other hand, Hindus need to understand that the Church is not a socio-political reality but for us an inseparable part of the (living) Total Christ.
        The Hindu-Christian dialogue, until now, has been very much conditioned by ignorance on both sides. For example, in the Christian context elements which are constitutive of the Christian faith, such as a call to conversion (evangelization or mission) addressed to all, religious liberty, promotion of human dignity, in particular of the poor and the oppressed, inculturation, the doctrine of Jesus Christ as Unique and Universal Savior, the Church as a reality inseparable from Jesus Christ, who is the full and definitive revelation of the Absolute Mystery of God, etc., were all seen by Hindus from the perspective of abuse in the colonial period, a tacit cover for conversions, meant thereby to increase numbers; or of identifying Christianity with the West, and every Christian as a foreigner in India. In the Hindu context, one could speak of the superiority complex of the Christians, an aggressive attitude in practising Christian proclamation, a persistent ignorance of Hindu ethos, mainly among the clergy.
        The time has come for a new era in Hindu-Christian dialogue. The novelty of the new era will be strengthened by mutual knowledge based on realities. Past suspicions must be overcome and wounds healed. Negative stereotypes of Christianity by Hindus, and vice versa, of Hinduism by Christians, must be laid to rest. Both sides need to acknowledge and respect fundamental differences, and be mutually enriched by whatever similarities are found in both traditions.[57]
        The Catholic Church rejects nothing which is true and holy in [Hinduism]. She looks with sincere respect upon those ways of conduct and of life, those rules and teachings which, though differing in many particulars from what she holds and sets forth, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.[58]

1 The word Hinduism is not a term which any religion in India applies to itself, but something which Europeans have invented. This word was meant to designate the religion of the Indians. They discovered too late that the Indians have many religions. Hinduism is regarded as one of the great world religions. Today (the Western scholars) realize, though they find it difficult to admit, that the Hindu religion is a plant which is much too beautiful to be thrown away. Still, it is an artificial plant; in nature it does not exist. Cf. Hans Kung, Christianity and World Religions, Munich, 1984.
2 One could make a distinction between Brahmanism, the religion of the Indo-Europeans, revolving around the sacrifice, Yajna, and the post-Buddhist congeries of movements collectively referred to as Hinduism, revolving around devotion to a personal deity. According to S. Radhakrishnan, "Hinduism seeks unity of religion not in a common creed but in a common quest." (The Hindu View of Life, London: Allen and Unwin, 1965, p.43)
3  See Felix Wilfred, "Some Tentative Reflections on the Language of Christian Uniqueness: An Asian Perspective": "The classical insight (intended) is the in-exhaustibility of the divine mystery which no one way or form can comprehend fully. It is a statement more about the nature of the goal - the divine Mystery - than the relationship among the paths" (Pro Dialogo, Bulletin 85-86, 1994/ 1, pp. 45-46a).
4  Pope John Paul II, "Discourse to People of Other Faiths," in Madras, India, February 5, 1986, l'Osservatore Romano (English), Feb. 10, 1986, p. 14.
5 Secretariatus Pro Non-Christianis (now the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue), "The Attitude of the Church Towards the Followers of Other Religions, Reflections and Orientations on Dialogue and Mission."
6  Some dialogues are motivated by concrete social, political or military conflicts, such as the current Jewish-Muslim dialogue in the Middle East or the Hindu-Muslim dialogue in India. Others originate from a need for enhanced mutual understanding between people who share common goals or organizational alliances... A third category, which seems to include the Buddhist-Christian dialogue, comes from the need to understand foreign ways of thought and to solve problems of religious identity created by the clash of cultures. (See Christian Jochim, "The Contemporary Confucian-Christian Encounter: Inter-religious or Intrareligious Dialogue," in Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 32: 1, Winter 1995, p.38.
7  Pope John Paul II took the initiative to invite many religious leaders to Assisi in 1986 in order to fast and pray for world peace.
8  One can speak of four distinct phases in Hindu-Christian dialogue: namely 1) the period in which Hindus were the dominant power; 2) the period in which Christians had the power, although they were not in the majority; 3) the present phase in which dialogue is understood as predominantly doctrinal; and 4) on the threshold of the breakthrough in which both traditions are challenged. (Cf. R. Panikkar, "The Ongoing Dialogue," in Hindu-Christian Dialogue, Perspectives and Encounters, ed. Harold Coward, (NY: Orbis Books, 1989), pp. xv-xvii.)
9  Even Nostra Aetate, which opened a radically new era of interreligious dialogue, never loses sight of unequivocally affirming the unique mediation of Christ and his Church in the salvation of all people. Also, see Paul VI, EvangeIii Nuntiandi, Apostolic Exhortation Letter, 1975; John Paul II, "Address to the Roman Curia," December 22, 1986, Insegnamenti, IX/2, (1986); Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Dialogue and Mission, (1984), and Dialogue and Proclamation, (1991).
10  S. Radhakrishnan, The Hindu View of Life, (London: Allen and Unwin, 1965).
11  The Hindu renaissance, which aimed at rationalizing and reforming Hinduism, can hardly be called an effort to dialogue in the strict sense of the word, not-withstanding the role played in it by Christianity. The main motive of almost all the Hindu reformers at the time was to defend Hinduism against the Christian charges that it was a pagan and idolatrous religion, and India, a land of griffons, monsters and demons. Thus, one can see a double motive in the Hindu renaissance: apologetical, on the one hand, and reformist, on the other. It must be said, further, that the Hindu renaissance itself is not a monolithic entity, but is made up of different movements which had varied contacts with Christianity. The Christian groups and figures which responded to the Hindu renaissance also vary. (Cf. Ronald Neufeldt, "The Response of the Hindu Renaissance to Christianity," in Hindu, Christian Dialogue, Perspectives and Encounters, ed. Harold Coward, (Orbis Book, Maryknoll, NY, 1989).
12  The publication of Nostra Aetate, together with the establishment of the Secretariat for Non-Christians, renamed the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, and subsequent official publications from the pontifical magisterium, will instruct the Christian faithful about the new attitude, the norm, and the ideal of interreligious dialogue. What is emphasized in dialogue is the need of a deep knowledge of one's own religion and that of the other. Cf. Harold Coward, Pluralism: Challenge to World Religions (Orbis Books Maryknoll, NY:, 1985, p.107): "A basic prerequisite for dialogue is that all participants have accurate information about each other's religions. Not fulfilling this prerequisite is probably the single largest obstacle to the success of religious dialogue. The majority of people today are illiterate in their own religion, as well as the religion of others. The academic study of religion has a major role to play in overcoming this problem." In the Hindu-Christian dialogue I would see all the more the need to have accurate information about each other's religion because of an even greater chance of misunderstanding between the two, given the nature of these two religions which have different world-views, approaches, terminology, methods and concepts.
13  The declaration selects certain key elements of Hinduism, without attempting the impossible task of describing in a short space the complex nature of Hindu-ism, the distinction between Vedanta (scriptures) and Puranas (lesser sacred books), the six philosophical systems, the innumerable sects, etc. Mention might have been made of the similarities between Hindu and Christian beliefs - the concept of God's appearance on earth; the concept of grace and sacraments; and similarities between the Christian Trinity and the Hindu ultimate reality - but all this, it was legitimately felt, could be left to the work of dialogue, which is endorsed and commended at the end of the articles. (See Nostra Aetate, The Documents of Vatican II, Ed. Walter M. Abbott, S.J., Geoffrey Chapman, London, 1966, footnote 7).
14  The text does mention "the unspent fruitfulness of myths"; and says that "Hindu India is rich in myth, and there is no better way to begin to grasp the complexity and the profundity of the Hindu imagination than to enter into the mythology of its great gods. India is a preponderant presence of the gods who are everywhere, and their images, some of them beautiful and some seemingly grotesque; everyone refers to gods and to their stories and brings them into conversations and arguments as exemplars of one point or another; the calendar - weekly, monthly, and yearly - seems to turn upon the many days set to honor these gods. Who are these gods? Why are there so many of them? Why are they depicted in such lavish visual terms?" (Diana Eck, "The Perspective of Pluralism in Theological Education," Ministerial Formation in a Multi-Faith Milieu, eds. Sam Amritham and Wesley Ariarajah, World Council of Churches, Geneva 1986, p.60.)
15  The works of Swami Abhishiktananda, Raimundo Panikkar, Jules Monchanin, Bede Griffiths and others bear witness to this fact.
16  These are the positions of the neo-Vedantins, like Aurobindo and S. Radhakrishnan.
17 Nostra Aetate, Vatican Council II, Nos., 1 and 2. The theological rationale for the Church to dialogue with other religions is further reinforced in the subsequent documents by taking recourse to the teachings of the Fathers of the Church on the "seeds of the Word," "the omnipresence of the Spirit," "God's dialogue with man in the salvation history," etc. Cf. Reflections and Orientations on Dialogue and Mission, 1984; and Reflections and Orientations on Interreligious Dialogue and the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, 1991, Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (PCID), Vatican City; Gaudium et Spes, No. 22; John Paul 11, Redemptor Hominis: "In a certain manner Christ is united to every human being; Christ is the center of the created world and its history."
18  Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium, No. 1,1.
19  Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Dialogue and Proclamation, Reflections and Orientations on Interreligious Dialogue and the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Vatican, 1991, No. 49.
20  It is to be noted that for Hindus, the whole reality is cosmo-the(o)-andric, i.e., cosmos, God and man are an inseparable whole (a unity of reality).
21 Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 2. 1. 10: The Absolute is the existence of all cxis-tents; the divine act is constitutive of the being of all things. Tritriya Upanishad III, 1: That from which, when born, they live, that into which, when dying, they enter, that you should desire to know, that is Brahman.
22  "The real doctrine of the whole of the Indian scriptures is the unity of the deity. Hindu theology, as enunciated in the Vedas and even in the Puranas, is thought to declare the unity of the godhead, and therefore to be consistent with monotheism. The real Hinduism has decidedly monotheistic leanings," H.T. Colebrooke, Essays on History, Literature and Religions of Ancient India, (New Delhi: Cosmos Publications, 1977) p.196. Also; "Real teaching of the whole of the Indian scriptures is the unity of the godhead," N.H. Wilson, Puranas, An Account of Their Contents and Nature, (Dhandigarh: Arun Publications, 1983), p.2. In Hindu tradition a place for pluralism is made without destroying the unitv of being. Pertinent here also are the remarks of Yves Con-gar, Chrètiens en Dialogue, (Paris: Cerf, 1964), p.17, where he says, "le dialogue est une des voies par les quelles la diversite de leur perceptions se recompose dans l'unité vers laquelle tout converge et monte. "
23  Cf. R. Etchegaray, "Nationalism," PCID, Pro Dialogo, Bulletin 89, 1995/2, p.141, where he says, 'I’homme religieux doit apprendre à penser I'absolu de Dieu dont il se réclame légitimement comme un absolu relationnel et non comme un absolu d'exclusion ou d'inclusion... L'apprentissage le plus dur et le plus urgent qui est demandé à toutes les religions consiste à s'ouvrir à la vérité des autres tout en sauvegardant sa propre vérité."
24  It is this that has given rise among adherents of Semitic religions to a mistaken belief that Hinduism is a polytheistic religion or idol worship. In popular forms of Hinduism God is worshipped as ista-devatas, and more personal and accessible deities have become the norm. Because the range of their attributes is infinite, the deities can be imagined in either human or non-human form, and this explains how, for example, the God Shiva may be worshipped in the form, not of a person, but of a linga or standing pillar that is at once phallic in origin and symbolic of divine power.
25 Brihadarnyaka Upanishad, 2.5.19; 4.4.5; Chandyoga Upanishad, 5.11.1; 8.14. 1. The Absolute and my deepest reality are a mystical union.
26  "The fulfilment notion can be found as early as 1845 in F.D. Maurice's influential Boyle lectures entitled, The Religions of the World and Their Relations to Christianity." "(The religions) reveal something of the relationship of people to God... Their aspirations, however, are incomplete and are answered fully only in Christianity," as quoted by Eric J. Sharpe in Faith Meets Faith. Some Christian Attitudes to Hinduism in the l9th and 20th Centuries, (London: SCM Press, 1977) pp. 13-14.
27  This is not without serious difficulty because from the Hindu point of view, Christ has been and is an important religious figure and an inspiration for Hindus. But this "incorporation" of the Mystery of Jesus Christ into the Hindu pantheon of gods presents serious difficulties for Hindu-Christian dialogue. See Ronald Neufeldt, "The Hindu Views of Christ," in Hindu Christian Dialogue, pp. 162-175: "The most devout Hindus call Jesus Christ one of Vishnu's avatara such as Rama, Krishna or Chaitanya." Depiction of Christ as the quintessential Hindu, the one who lives Hindu ideals as they ought to be lived and one who teaches the essence of Hindu truth as it ought to be taught, is quite common in the Hindu tradition, but this "absorption" of Christ is viewed by Christians as weakening the very essence of Christian uniqueness.
28  Rg Veda, V.I. 164, 46: The Absolute is Unity, which is seen in its diversity by the Sages.
29  On the one hand, Jewish and Muslim monotheism and, on the other hand, Hindu monotheism, need to be qualified, lest the Jewish-Muslim monotheism appear monism, and Hindu monotheism seem pantheism. As a Christian, I see Jesus Christ as the qualifying term, the harmony. See my article, "La mission en Crise? Occasion d'une Nouvelle Espérance?", Felix Machado, in Spiritus, (138), Fevrier, 1995.
30  "The dialogue with the Jewish and Muslim worlds has overtaken that with Hindus, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Political and economic considerations aside, Christian scholars and Church leaders have always been better equipped to approach the Jewish and Muslim worlds with a measure of under-standing than they have Hinduism... In recent years, with certain outstanding exceptions, Hindu-Christian dialogue has sometimes been written about by Christians having a deep commitment to theology but relatively little interest in religion," Eric J. Sharpe in "Hindu-Christisn Dialogue in Europe," Hindu-Christian Dialogue, p.110. Also see Pope John Paul II, Tertio Millenio Adveniente, Apostolic Letter for the Jubilee of the Year 2000 (Vatican, 1994), no. 53: "In this dialogue the Jews and Muslims ought to have a preeminent place".
31  The Upanishads lead us to consider the identity of things and not their diversity. It is a way of thinking based on the primacy of the principle of identity over against other ways of thinking based on the primacy of the principle of non-contradiction. See Jose Kuttianimattathil, "The Dialogical Method of Theologizing," in Vidyajyoti, 59 (1995), pp. 11-24. Also see Felix Wilfred, "Some Tentative Reflections on the Language of Christian Uniqueness: An Indian Perspective," PCID: Pro Dialogo, Bulletin 85-86, 1994/1; also, Archbishop F. Capalla, "The Role of Religious Groups in Pluralistic Societies - Ideals and Realities; Traditions of Harmony in Southeast Asia as a Basis for Christian-Muslim Dialogue," PCID: Pro Dialogo, Bulletin 87,1994/2.
32  Pope John Paul II, "Discourse of the Pope to the Bishops from Tamil Nadu and Karnataka on "Ad limina" Visit," PCID, Pro Dialogo, Bulletin 89, 1995.2, p. 128.
33  The concept of sacrifice offers a rich potential for a mutually enriching under-standing of the mystery of creation, redemption and consummation in Jesus Christ in Hindu-Christian dialogue. See, R. Panikkar, Mantramanjari, An Anthology of the Vedas for Modern Man and Contemporary Celebration, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1977) pp.346-431.
34  One will find a central authority analogous to Semitic religions in different sampradaya, or many a temple board.
35  Peter C. Phan, "The Claim of Uniqueness and Universality in Interreligious Dialogue," in Indian Theological Studies 31 (1) March 1994.
36  M.M. Thomas, The Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renaissance (London: SCM Press) 1969.
37  "Hinduism has experienced an inferiority complex for the last seven hundred years. From 1200 to 1750 the larger part of India was dominated by Muslim rulers, and the legacy of the Mughal emperors was then taken over by the British for a period of another two centuries. Hinduism experienced a long period of stagnation, not only in the Muslim period, but also during the confrontation with Western arrogance and superiority. The Westerners sometimes had a short flirtation with a selection of ideas from India, but more often considered Hinduism a non-religion, a vague, unstructured and enigmatic pattern of fighting sects and conflicting doctrines, a religion without a proper dogmatics or organization. In the process of a growing self-consciousness (the more positive equivalent of fundamentalism) the fight around the Babri-Mosque became the symbol of the place of Hinduism in the new India. The demolition of the mosque might in fact be seen as a national ritual of cleansing." (Exchange, Institute of Missiological and Ecumenical Research, Leiden/Utrect, Vol. 22, 1993, NR 3.)
38  John Paul 11, "Homily at a Mass in the Sudan," OS, February 10, 1993.
39  Pope John Paul II, " Tertio Millenio Adveniente. "
40  The Hindu concept of time (An Idea of History): A yuga is a cosmic cycle. A mahayuga (complete cycle) comprises 12,000 years. It ends with a dissolution, a pralaya, which is repeated more drastically (mahapralaya) at the end of the 1000th cycle. The paradigmatic schema "creation-destruction-creation" is reproduced ad infiniturn. The 12,000 years of a mahapralaya were regarded as divine years, each with a duration of 360 years, which gives a total of 4,320,000 years for a single cosmic cycle. A thousand such mahayuga make a kalpa; 14 kalpas make up a manavantar (named after Manu). A kalpa is equivalent to a day in the life of Brahman; a second kalpa to a night. One hundred of these years of Brahman, in other words, 311,000 milliards of human years, constitute the life of Brahman. But, even this duration of the god's life does not exhaust time, for the gods are not eternal and the cosmic creation and destruction succeed one another forever. Also cf. R. Panikkar, The Cosmotheandric Experience, Emerging Religious Consciousness, (New York: Orbis Books, 1994), in which the author studies the radically different views of history in the context of today's problems.
41  M. Dhavamony quotes J. Nehru in Hindouism et Foi Chrétienne, (Paris: Desclée et Brouwer, 1994).
42  Anthapurusha, The Hindu Response in Dialogue Initiated by Christians (Typed script), Serampore, B.D. Thesis, Calcutta Bishop's College, 1987, p.66.
43  PCID, Dialogue and Proclamation, 11.
44  Secretariatus Pro Non-Christianis, "The Attitude of the Church towards the Followers of Other Religious, Reflections and Orientations on Dialogue and Mission," Vatican City, 1984. No. 43.
45  Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio, No. 46.
46  Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes, No. 13.
47  Vatican Council II, Dignitatis Humanae, No. 4.
48  It must be clearly stated that all efforts on the part of the Church to promote the dignity of man form an integral part of the Christian faith and must not be construed as anything less than that.
49  Hinnells and Sharpe, eds. World Religions in Education: Hinduism (New Castle on-Tyne: Oriel Press, 1972) p. x.
50  Faith and Inculturation, International Theological Commission, Rome, December 1987, 3.
51  Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium, concerning Jews, the document says: "In the first place there is the people [the Jews] to whom the convenant and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers, this people remains most dear to God..." And again concerning Muslims it says: "...the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place among these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind" (Ch. II, No. 16).
52  R. Panikkar, "'The Ongoing Dialogue," in Hindu-Christian Dialogue, p. xiv.
53  Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio, Vatican Press, 1991, No. 55.
54  Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, "Dialogue and Proclamation, Reflections and Orientations on Interreligious Dialogue and the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ," Vatican, 1991, No. 4, c: "There are those who would seem to think, erroneously, that in the Church's mission today dialogue should simply replace proclamation. At the other extreme, some fail to see the value of inter-religious dialogue."
55  Hinduism is seen not only as sharing all the wanton excesses of baroque sensuality and near-idolatry but also - and worse - as being in some incomprehensible way entangled with unbridled sex, which - even worse - is openly portrayed on its temples, and - worst of all - made in the form of the phallic linga the very object of worship itself. (See Thomas B. Coburn, "Scripture in India: Towards a Typology of the Word in Hindu Life," Journal of the American Academy of Religion, LII/3.
The neat distinction between Nirguna and Saguna Brahman (The Absolute Mystery) often leads to a mistakenly divided idea of God in the minds of many. This tends to give occasion in many simple people to think that between God and the world there exists an unbridgeable gulf, an irreparable distance, and an impossible abyss. This results in conceiving the world as a place dominated and ruled by superstitious powers.
56  Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio, No. 56.
57  Here I must mention a work by Diana L. Eck, Encountering God, A Spiritual Journey from Bozeman to Banares, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1993), which to me seems a fine example of Hindu-Christian dialogue in recent times.
58  Vatican Council 11, Nostra Aetate, No. 2.

        In the Upanishads and in the thought of all the great Indian thinkers, the Supreme Being is the coincidence of opposites.

Anejadeka manaso javiyo nainaddeva apnuvan purvamarsat taddhavato nyanatyeti tisthattasminnpo matarisva dadhati (Isa 4).

        Reality is pluralistic. We experience a rich plurality in nature, in human society and in perceiving the Divine. Pluralism is a constitutive dimension of reality. Hence, the ultimate foundation of reality has to be conceived in terms of plurality, as the Ground of Being that holds in harmony the plurality of reality, as the ultimate coincidentia oppositorum. Brahman is samanadhikaranya, and Brahmajijnasa evolves on the path of samanvaya. It is on this path of harmony that religions could meet in a process of creative dialogue.
        This seems to be the main proposition of Professor Mishra in this erudite paper. He has presented his thesis with precision and clarity, in loyalty to the noble heritage of India, and with a keen sensitivity to the demands of a culture of dialogue in the pluralistic societies of Asia.
        I am basically in agreement with this approach to theology and to religious pluralism. This perspective of samanvaya opens infinite possibilities for a creative and mutually enriching dialogue between believers of various religions, concretely between Hindus and Christians. I would like to mention a few issues of this paper for a fruitful discussion.

       1. As Professor Mishra mentions in his paper: "It is a general tendency of human thought to negate one of the opposing qualities and to flatten out reality and also human thought." It is "very difficult for us to keep together opposing qualities or realities." This difficulty comes from the constitutive structure of the mind, (manah, ratio). Mind objectivizes everything, takes abstraction from the concrete, and creates concepts. Thus, mind objectivizes and conceptualizes the Absolute too. The transpersonal Divine becomes personal God in the framework of the mind, and anthro-pomorphical names-and-forms are attributed to God. This process gives rise to a concrete religion. However, mystics and sages of all religions make us constantly aware of a faculty of perception deeper than the mind: the intuitive faculty, the contemplative organ (buddhih, intuitio), which is symbolically described as the inner eye, the inner flame, the light within, the interior master, the cave of the heart, apex mentis, the divine spark of the soul, etc. At this level of deeper consciousness, one intuits everything by becoming one with it, through an ecstasis within the subject. The Divine is experienced as the transpersonal subject of everything, the ultimate Self (Atman, Spirit). We need to probe into the distinction between:
 

        Nicholas of Cusa, whom Professor Mishra mentions in his paper, makes a fundamental distinction between ratio discurrens and intellectus videns (Apol. Doct. Ignor., Leipzig 1932, p.28). He calls intuitive perception profunditas rationis (De Coniecturis, II, 2, Basel, 1565, p.94). This distinction is important for understanding his epistemology.

        2. Nicholas of Cusa was born in 1401 in Cusa, in the Mosel valley, Germany. He lived at a time of acute theological dissensions and controversies, condemnation and inquisition. It was the period of the later Crusades, characterized by a belligerent antagonism between the Christian West and the Muslim Orient. Nicholas, a passionate seeker of truth and harmony, found that the insane religious wars between Christians and Muslims were caused by prejudices and misconceptions about the other, and by the tendencies to assert one's own religion as the absolute norm for all others. Nicholas took the trouble to go to Constantinople in order to meet Muslims and get first-hand information about their religion, with an open mind. He procured a copy of the Holy Quran, studied it carefully and wrote a treatise on it, Cribratio Alcorani (1461). This was the first Christian attempt to understand Islam with openness and tolerance. As a mystic and theologian, he was in search of a paradigm to acknowledge the plurality of religions. On his way back from Constantinople to Venice he experienced a moment of enlightenment in which the term coincidentia oppositorum surfaced in his mind as a "gift from above." What does he mean by this term?

        i. The dominant scholastic philosophy of the Middle Ages pursued the way of analogy in speaking about God. Nicholas, however, found that the finite human mind would never reach an adequation with the Infinite, with the Divine. Hence, the only way to perceive divine Truth is that of in-tuition, which demands that the mind (ratio) be transcended:

I have learnt that the place wherein Thou art found unveiled is girt around with the coincidentia oppositorum, and this is the wall of Paradise, wherein Thou dost abide. The door whereof is guarded by the most proud spirit of ratio; unless he is vanquished, the way unto Thee will not be open " (De Visione Dei, New York, 1938, p.43).

        iii. The mind always conceives the division of opposites (according to the principle of contradiction); but intuition perceives (ratio videns) the dialectical integration of the opposites, the coincidentia oppositorum. It is a mystical, poetic, holistic insight into the core of reality. On the surface, reality is pluralistic because the ultimate depth of reality is "complicatio ornnium" (Doct. Ign., 1, Leipzig, p.44)

        iv. The Divine could, therefore, be perceived as coincidentia oppositorum. The divine reality is the ground, the source, the root, the fountain, the eternal silence... in which contrary factors are held in conjunctio, in dialectical tension, in harmony. In the Divine absolute, unity is absolute multiplicity, absolute identity is absolute diversity, absolute actuality is absolute pontentiality. "Omnis enim diversitas in Deo est identitas" (Doct. Ign. p.21.). Creation with all its plurality is the unfolding of the divine fecundity. The universe is the mirror of God (speculum Dei).

        v. On the basis of this theology Nicholas of Cusa acknowledges the reality of multiplicity in the world, and also the plurality of religions and cultures. In every single thing the totality of reality is present: each thing is everything. "Quodlibet in quolibet" (Doct. Ign. 11, 74). There is no religion which is exclusive or absolute; in every religion there is a fragmentary perception of the ineffable mystery of the Divine. (cf. Etienne Gilson, Nicholas of Cusa, Unity of Philosophical Existence, New York, 1937, p.115). Each religion is, therefore, to be understood in relationality with other religions.

It is you, O God, who is being sought in the various religions in various ways, and named with various names, for you remain as you are, to all incomprehensible and inexpressible. When you will graciously grant it, then sword, jealous hatred and evil will cease and all will come to know that there is but one religion in the variety of religious rites (De Pace Fidei, Basel, 1565, p. 15).

        Nicholas of Cusa comes from the apophatic mystical tradition of Proclus, Dyonisius, Bonaventure, the School of Chartres and Meister Eckhart. His mystical perspectives on plurality and interreligious dialogue were not accepted in the official theological circles of Western Christianity. Today, the time has come for us in Asia to listen to this prophet-mystic of the Middle Ages in order to develop a culture of dialogue with the co-pilgrims of diverse religious traditions.

        3. I would like to propose the symbol of a tree in order to have a clearer understanding of the term coincidentia oppositorum. The Bhagavad Gita, ch. 15, and John's Gospel, ch. 15, describe a tree, both with converging concerns. A tree symbolizes the plurality of reality. No two leaves of a tree are exactly the same. Yet, the entire tree has a harmony of its own. The multiplicity of leaves and branches is held together and nourished by the root, the hidden mystery of its source of life. Within the womb of the root there is coincidentia oppositorum, the dialectical unity of multiplicity. The root in its unity constantly gives birth to plurality. The Divine is the root of our being, root of this pluralistic world. The experience of the Divine branches off in various directions through various religions, yet as Professor Mishra says: "At the bottom there is a quest for and a glimpse of something beyond." The religious person of the future will be an interreligious person, firmly rooted where he is planted, but taking nourishment from the other branches of the cosmo-theandric tree, in which all are bound together by one divine source.

        4. Reality reveals not merely plurality, but relationship too. Things are interrelated in such an intimate way that no one thing can exist without others; no religion can survive all by itself. When our intuition probes into the ultimate ground of ontic relationality, we may come to another insight: the Divine is Trinity, eternal self-unfolding with the three immanent dimensions of being-in-itself, being-out-of-itself and being-unto-itself. Christian theology tries to describe this in terms of Father-Son -Spirit. Indian sages had the perception of Sat-Chit-Ananda. Does this insight into the triune structure of reality, and of the Divine, correspond to coincidentia oppositorum? Does it offer us an inspiration and perspective for developing a culture of dialogue? This is a question which could be taken up for our search today. Such a discussion would perhaps bring to focus the deeper dimension of Hindu-Christian dialogue.

        5. When the ultimate ground of being is understood in terms of samanadhikaranyaya, any absolute statement about the Divine or our relationship with God is called into question. Consequently, the ethical foundation of human life too loses the absolute basis. Here it could be asked: Does not Hinduism thereby lose a critical stance on religious practices or ethical principles? May not religious tolerance slip into a sort of naive tolerance? When on the other side, the Divine is understood in terms of coincidentia oppositorum any dogmatic statement about God's saving act in history is called in question. How then can Christianity raise claims of absoluteness and normativeness? How would Christian theology reconcile it with the "fulfillment theory" with respect to the Christ-event? These questions invite us to a self-critical probing into our religious heritage and theological framework.

        6. Finally, Professor Mishra rightly declares dialogue as "the way that is open to reach samanvaya." As believers of different religions, we are all co-pilgrims in pursuit of truth and justice, love and peace; we are all sadhakas in search of the Divine that is beyond all religions (Deus semper major). "We all are on a fraternal journey in which we accompany one another towards the goal which God sets for us" (Pope John Paul at Assisi, 1986). In this process of always being-on-the-way we share our spiritual experiences and insights with the co-pilgrims - this is dialogue. But we do this in the spirit of samanvaya, wherein similarities are recognized, and differences are respected. The goal of this relentless pilgrimage is still unknown to us; but we have the inner assurance that we are on the right path, for we participate in God's pluralistic dialogue with humanity.  Satyam eve jayate!

1. Preamble

        On October 24-38 1995, over 60 participants belonging to the Hindu and Christian faiths met at the Indian Social Institute, New Delhi, India, to explore ways of working for harmony in today's world. Participants came from Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. The encounter was sponsored by the Office of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs (OEIA) of the Federation of Asian Bishops' Conferences (FABC), and organized together with the Secretariat for Interreligious Dialogue of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of India.
        As co-pilgrims, we prayed and reflected together on the challenges of Asia, our continent, that gave birth to the great World Religions. We were aware of the deep religiosity that marks the life of the vast majority of Asian peoples.
        It is the deep conviction of the participants that Reality is pluralistic. There is a rich pluralism in nature and human society. Cultures differ from one another and religions follow diverse paths to the experience of the Absolute. The continual search for wholeness and unity of life is a constituent feature of all religions. There is an ineffable and universal rhythm that unifies everything into an organic whole which binds together pluralistic reality. The Asian sages perceived this unifying principle of harmony as Tao, Rta, and Dharma. The Asian psyche builds concepts and practices of harmony to cope with the ongoing dialectic of unity and diversity.

2. Major Areas of Disharmony

        Asian religious cultures are primarily cultures of harmony, but the contemporary situations of life in Asian countries are characterized by several tragic factors of acute disharmony.

        a) As Asian economics enter the global capitalist system, the gap between the affluent classes and the poor is widened. This leads to the unethical exploitation of natural resources, the destruction of the environment and of the earth, the habitat of all life.
        b) Unprecedented mobility of peoples, caused by political and economic factors, causes a disruption of families and a sense of being uprooted. This gives rise to ethnic conflicts and exploitation of weaker sections of society, such as women, children, unemployed youth and migrant workers.
        c) In the multireligious and pluricultural contexts of Asian countries, the imposition of the religion, culture or language of one dominant group causes an escalation of strife and division which destroy the fabric of harmonious living.
        d) Religious feelings, symbols and structures are often misused by political and commercial power-holders to perpetuate their power and in-crease their wealth. This gives rise to communal riots in which the victims are the poor and weaker sections of society.

3. Signs of Harmony

        Despite the shadows, we also noticed signs of hope in the Asian scene. There is widespread understanding and respect for the identity of the other. This is evident in the increase in peoples' movements, such as peace marches, solidarity groups, environment protection projects, artists working for communal harmony, intrereligious groups, and women/child welfare groups.
        We are convinced that religious experiences and expressions can play a significant role in bringing about a deeply-rooted culture of harmony. Through interreligious dialogue, the liberative and unifying potential of each religion is to be articulated and made effective for integral social transformation.

4. The Hindu Perception of Harmony

        The sages of India and the saints of Hinduism have extensively explored the theological, philosophical and social foundations of pluralism, and have come to the insight that plurality is ultimately rooted in the Absolute. Brahman, the Absolute Being (sat), itself is the harmony (samanvaya) of polarities, and hence, the common foundation of cosmic plurality. Brahman constantly unfolds in the multiplicity of realities in which it is immanent and to which it is transcendent. The Absolute is the ineffable ONE (ekam sat), but it is perceived in a variety of ways (vipra bahudha vadanti). The authentic access to the experience of the Absolute is, therefore, that of samanvaya.
        This alone can open our minds to the ontic relationship in which everything is bound up with everything else in an integral whole. In this spiritual pursuit (sadhana), the diversities of religious paths are not denied, but recognized and respected in terms of a higher synthesis that is always beyond our perception. Dialogue evolves in a pluralistic situation where similarities and differences coexist (bhedabheda).

5. The Christian Perception of Harmony

        In the Christian spiritual heritage there has also been a search for the ultimate source of diversities, which shape cosmic reality and human society. Jesus Christ experienced the Divine as Father, the ultimate source of Life and Love, that poured itself out through him as the Spirit. Hence, the Christian sages contemplated the Divine as Trinity: Father-Son-Spirit in eternal communion. The interpersonal polarity between Father and Son, and the transpersonal union in the Spirit are perceived as the ultimate foundation for interpersonal encounter and union among human persons created in the image of God. "I" become fully myself only through the "thou," through the ecstasis of love.
        Experience of the triune Divine is a demand to accept the other as other and to respect differences and promote relationships, for one cannot exist without the other. The ineffable mystery of the Divine is not a static self-identity, but a dynamic relationality, a constant self-outpouring, not ultimate dissolution, but coincidentia oppositorum (Nicholas of Cusa). The authentic way of responding to the "Spirit that blows where it wills" is that of harmony: "Diversity is not something to be regretted and abolished, but to be celebrated and promoted, since it represents richness and strength" (FABC BIRA IV/11, 15).

6. What Harmony Is

       Samanvaya is the spiritual pursuit of the totality of reality in its infinite diversity and radical unity. Since the ultimate ground of being is unity-in-plurality, the divergent forms of reality are perceived in the convergent rhythm that harmonizes them. Harmony evolves by respecting the otherness of the other and by acknowledging its significance in relation to the totality. Consequently, the unique significance of every religion is gratefully and critically perceived within the context of the universal spiritual evolution of humanity.
        Beyond the extremes of inclusivism and exclusivism, pluralism is accepted in resonance with the constitutive plurality of reality. Religions, as they are manifested in history, are complementary perceptions of the ineffable divine mystery, the God-beyond-God. All religions are visions of the divine mystery. No particular religion can raise the claim of being the norm for all others. We religious believers are co-pilgrims, who share intimate spiritual experiences and reflections with one another, with concern and compassion, with genuine openness to truth, and the freedom of spiritual seekers (sadhakas). In this process we become increasingly sensitive to human suffering and collaborate in promoting justice, peace, and ecological wholeness.

7. What Harmony Is Not

        In our shared reflections, we realized that harmony does not consist in levelling off differences in order to arrive at consensus at any cost. Avoiding controversies and bypassing disagreements do not pave the way to harmony. To say that all religions are the same is simplistic, and does not promote honest dialogue; but to argue that religions do not meet at all would block any creative interaction. Where only similarities exist, there is no need of dialogue; where only differences exist, there is no possibility of dialogue. Inclusivism does not respect the identity of each religion, and exclusivism does not recognize the relationality of religions. The way of harmony does not unfold through aggressive indoctrination, which distorts reality. Dialogue aimed at "converting" the other to one's own religious faith and tradition is dishonest and unethical; it is not the way of harmony.

8. Steps Towards Working For A Culture Of Harmony

        In our search for a liberating religious presence and effective interreligious cooperation in Asian countries we located the followed areas of collaboration between Hindus and Christians.

        1. Develop the spiritual insights and theological reflection of Hindu-ism and Christianity, so that both communities promote a common commitment to integral human liberation. The centrality of the human person with intrinsic and inalienable dignity is the foundation for all dialogue. Hence, the sacred character of the human person must be accepted and respected by all sectors of society and powers-that-be.

        2. Dialogue can be genuine and effective only if both partners are deeply rooted in their respective faith experience and become acquainted with the basics of the other's religion. Hence, there is need for proper religious and interreligious formation programs based on the authentic scriptural sources, particularly for those engaged in dialogue. It is important to get parity groups of acknowledged religious leaders, social activists and theologians of both communities, so that dialogue sessions be transparent and effective.

        3. Hindus and Christians should collaborate in areas of spiritual guidance, counselling programs, literacy campaigns, conscientization on justice issues, defence of human rights, promotion of peace in conflictual situations, protection of the environment and promotion of women and the girlchild.

        4. Dialogue initiatives at all levels should be transparent. While acknowledging the fundamental right of every person to religious freedom, we should unambiguously oppose all forms of coercion or enticement to win over believers of other religions to one's own religious community. The otherness of the other should always be respected in the process of dialogue.

        5. Friendship and mutual trust are the starting points for building harmony. Therefore, it is necessary to organize in every village/township interreligious friendship groups (e.g., solidarity teams, neighborhood associations, interreligious councils, basic human communities, etc.) which promote interpersonal relations and interreligious understanding and co-operation.

        6. Conduct attractive and relevant educational programs in order to make high school and college students acquainted with the basics of all religions; they should be introduced to areas of interreligious collaboration for peace and justice.

        7. Make effective and critical use of the media (TV, radio, newspapers, journals, books, cinema, etc.) to promote interreligious understanding and to defend the values of family integrity and civic responsibility, justice and harmony.

        8. Organize joint celebrations of major feasts of the local religious communities in order to bring people together in emotional bonding. Make use of religious gatherings associated with feasts, pilgrimages, meals and conventions to disseminate the ideals of interreligious harmony.

        9. The religious communities should use prudence in promoting public demonstrations of religious fervor and the use of electronic sound systems which can irritate others.

        10. Jointly oppose false propaganda on religions, expose the hidden motives of those who seek to create enmity and hatred between religious groups, and remove prejudices through factual studies and objective in-formation. The narrow attitudes and unethical practices of sects should not be taken as representative of mainline religious communities.

        11. In relating to primal cultures and indigenous communities, we should be sensitive to their cultural identity and religious sentiments, the identity of their culture with the positive social values should be preserved. We should build bridges of understanding and harmony between majority and minority groups.

        12. Make joint efforts to recover the Asian sense of rootedness in Mother Earth, resist projects which unduly exploit natural resources and destroy the environment.

        13. Finally, an honest probing into one's own religious traditions and practices should make us critical of our heritage and repent of offenses committed against love and truth in the past.

9. Conclusion

        The concept of dharma seeks to recreate wholeness and order which is tarnished by the various forms of alienation caused by ignorance, egoism and attachment. A deeper understanding of concern and commitment towards strengthening interreligious dialogue came to all the participants during their visit to the ashrams in Rishikesh. Ultimately, samanvaya is not a human achievement, but the gift of divine grace; interreligious, dialogue is not ultimately our project, but our response to God dialoguing with individuals and peoples in a variety of ways, which are articulated in the plurality of religions. Hence, we can walk together on the path of dialogue and service towards harmony as sisters and brothers bound in one Love and drawn by one Divine Truth.