Home
	About
	Programs
	Events
	Reports
	Articles
	Links

Annual Fall Dialogue 2003

The chairman, Rev. Clint Mooney, current president of the CCCJ-Alberta region, called on Rev. Klaus Ohlhoff to introduce Prof. Tinu Ruparell, the speaker who has his PHD from Cambridge University. He specializes in Comparative Philosophy of Religion, focussing on the Hindu and Christian traditions. He also teaches in the areas of Religious Experience, and Science and Religion.

The audience     Photo: J. Poulin

Dr. Ruparell began by explaining that there is a difference between words used to speak "of God", religious language, and words used by God. ‘God-talk’, words used by human beings to “describe God” are necessarily limited. We can’t talk about God directly. We are compelled to use negative expressions or the indirect human language of metaphor, analogy, symbol, which must then be translated and interpreted. Human language expresses itself, praises or connotes, but does not effect anything

‘God’s talk’, on the other hand, is direct, creative, immediately effecting the universe. God says a word and it becomes concrete. Texts from the three religious traditions considered by Dr. Ruparell all converge on this point. A quotation from the Jewish “Sepher HaYetzira” ch. 2:6 states that God’s word brings “substance out of chaos, non-existence into existence”. In Christian tradition, the Gospel of John 1:1 states “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... all things were made by him”. Finally, in Hinduism, speech, vak, is identified with God (Brahman). According to the Upanishad 4:1.2,“speech truly is Brahman”.

God’s word not only creates but also distinguishes one element from another, day from night, the sun from the moon, sea, earth and sky. By naming them, for example in the creation story of Genesis, things become what they are and not something else.

Human speech, on the other hand, is not productive. We cannot create. However, God has given us the duty (also a burden) to imitate the Godhead by differentiating through speech (Gr. mimesis = imitating God). Once again, the sources converge. In the book of Genesis, God asked Adam to name (differentiate) the living creatures that had already been created. The first human in Indian tradition, Manu, was asked by the devas to distinguish four divisions of labour for mankind.

Prof. Tinu Ruparell and Rev. Clinton Mooney Photo: J. Poulin

The effort to imitate this aspect of God demands skillful practice (Gr.= phonesis) gained mainly through dialogue with others. Among the many good definitions of dialogue, Dr. Ruparell chose two. Paulo Freire describes dialogue as “the encounter between men, mediated by the world, in order to name the world”. Jurgen Haberman’s definition includes ideas such as “an ideal conversation” and “unforcedly egalitarian”.

The condition for entering into fruitful dialogue with others, however, is to ‘leave our own agenda at the door’, ‘suspend our assumptions’ (David Bohm). The opposite attitude is to throw into the dialogue a ‘conversation stopper’, a ‘firewall’ beyond which the other cannot penetrate. This is the cardinal sin.

Through dialogue, we re-create ourselves (we turn mimesis and phronesis into poesis = re-making oneself). Through real dialogue we re-configure ourselves, see the world and ourselves as if we were the other. In other words, we emerge as the other, as our neighbor. In some way God became 'other' at creation, hence the 'divine performance'. We re-enact an analogous play when we re-create ourselves in dialogue.

Rochelle Rabinovitz, vice-president of the CCCJ-Alberta region, thanked the speaker for his valuable, lively and thought-provoking contribution to our understanding of interfaith dialogue. We especially appreciated the fact that the lecture was enlivened by his use of power point and animated clips from The Simpsons and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

The round table discussions concentrated on the following questions proposed by Dr. Ruparell:

Table discussion     Photo: J. Poulin

• How much (and what) might you need to “check at the door” in order to achieve an ideal conversation?
• What keeps us from doing so?
• What are the limits of dialogue?
• Are ‘hybrid’ traditions possible, desirable?

The round-table discussions were so intense and lively that it was with difficulty that the chairman brought the session to a close.