The Encyclopedia of World Religions

118 S dialogue

Christian churches, for example, Catholics and Lutherans, established official dialogues with one another. Some Christian groups established offi cial dialogues with representatives of other reli gions, for example, Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists. Indeed, the Second V ATICAN C OUNCIL saw dialogue as the most appropriate means to use in mission ary efforts. In 1983 Leonard Swidler, a theologian, pub lished 10 ground rules for interreligious dialogue. He called them the “Dialogue Decalogue.” The fol lowing points drawn from his rules give a good idea of what interreligious dialogue is about. ◆ People participate in interreligious dialogue to learn what other people believe, not to teach them what is true (rule 1). ◆ Participants must accept one another as equals. For example, one cannot consider people of other religions savage, primitive, demonic, deluded, or evil (rule 7). ◆ Each participant has the right to define what her or his view actually are. For example, if a person insisted that a physical image was not G OD but simply a means to help one WORSHIP God, one should not insist that that person was worship ping the image or idol itself (rule 5). ◆ Participants must be willing to look at their own religions critically (rule 9). ◆ All participants must share their positions hon estly. That means they must be willing to share their doubts and hesitations as well as their con victions (rule 3). ◆ In a dialogue people should compare the practices of others with their own practices, their own ide als with the ideals of others. In the past, people had often used their ideals to condemn the prac tices of others. They had conveniently ignored problems with their own practices (rule 4). Swidler claimed that interreligious dialogue was “something new under the sun.” Others claimed that only dialogue and the attitudes found in dialogue could save human beings from univer sal threats, such as nuclear holocaust or an ecolog ical imbalance that would poison the Earth. These claims are probably too enthusiastic.

the teachings of Buddhism make up a large collec tion of books in the Pali language known as the Tipitika or “Three Baskets.” These “baskets” or collections are the basket of the Buddha’s sermons (dharma, properly speaking), the basket of the monastic discipline, and the basket of philosophi cal speculation known as “abhi-dharma.” In M AHAYANA B UDDHISM , which is found espe cially in east Asia, the word dharma sometimes takes on an even broader sense. The “three-body doctrine” identifies three different bodies (Kaya) of the Buddha or three different manifestations of the Buddhist dharma. They are the earthly (nirmanakaya), heavenly or “enjoyment” body (sambhogakaya), and absolute (dharmakaya). The historical Buddha is the ideal form in which the dharma appears in our world. But it is not the high est form of dharma. The heavenly body refers to the most excellent manifestations of dharma pos sible in worlds of name and form. In other words, it refers to the Buddhas and BODHISATTVAS who live in the various HEAVENS . Beyond name and form is the dharma body itself. In this body the dharma underlies and sustains all that is. dialogue A method by which religious people in the second half of the 20th century tried to under stand one another. Dialogue was especially popu lar among liberals of all three branches of C HRIS TIANITY : E ASTERN O RTHODOX C HRISTIANITY , R OMAN C ATHOLICISM , and P ROTESTANTISM . Talking with people who practice a religion different from one’s own is certainly not new. Akbar (1542–1605), a Muslim emperor of India, was noted for his religious tolerance. At his capital, Fatehpur Sikri, he built a structure that provided him an elevated seat in the center of a room. Dif ferent religious teachers—Muslim, Hindu, Bud dhist, and Christian—occupied elevated “pulpits” in each of the room’s four corners. In this way, Akbar entered into discussion with all four teach ers simultaneously. During the 20th century, Christian denomi nations and MISSIONARIES became increasingly interested in “interreligious dialogue.” Different