Steps Towards Integral Deep Dialogue, Part 1

PluralNexus

Roots of Deep Dialogue
 
In the recent Zaadz Symposium on Integrative Spirituality, and in a related discussion, several of us have been discussing the challenges of responding to the largely ethnocentric religious movements that are currently in the headlines, whether in the form of the small but politically influential religious right in the U.S., or in the form of extremist Islamic groups, or in any of a number of areas where cultures and v-Memetic perspectives are clashing.  From an integral developmental perspective, recognizing the limited effectiveness of the dialogical approach with individuals at egocentric (Red) or absolutistic (Amber) centers of gravity, we will not mistake "dialogue" as the panacea that some idealistic Boomers have taken it to be.  Other approaches are often required -- religious, social, political, even military. 
 
However, the art of dialogue -- deep, intersubjective inquiry and engagement -- remains a social and spiritual imperative in our postmodern, pluralistic age.  In the Integral arena, with Ken Wilber's proposal that religions serve as conveyor belts, as vehicles of stage as well as state transformation, deep dialogue can play an especially important role, as leaders of multiple faith traditions work together to resolve the social issues and problems that manifest at each stage of their traditions' development.  If ethnocentric violence and oppression, for instance, are to be managed (and ultimately transformed), I believe the optimal approach must be to address these issues from within the tradition or culture, on its terms, even while the world community also sets legislation in place which prohibits hateful and harmful behavior in the public sphere.  This internal work, with the demands it places on being able to relate to others with respect and to learn to take others' perspectives, will be facilitated if leaders in these traditions practice and allow themselves to be transformed by deep dialogue (perhaps at levels of depth currently unavailable to many in the fold), both with members of competing sects or denominations within the tradition and with members of very different traditions.
 
In recent decades, a number of steps in this direction have been taken that are worth noting.  Beginning in the late 1960s, with the encouragement of Paul VI, monastic leaders, particularly in the Benedictine and Cistercian orders, began what has become a decades-long experiment in interreligious dialogue with monastics of other world traditions, primarily Hindu and Buddhist.  Thomas Merton, Bede Griffiths, and Henri Le Saux have been among the prominent leaders of this movement, which has been institutionalized in the U.S. under the name of the Committees for Monastic Interreligious Dialogue.  Father Thomas Keating, following in the footsteps of these pioneers, participated in the Snowmass Ecumenical Conference in 1984, in which members of multiple faith traditions met to dialogue and look for common ground, and has been quite active in interreligious dialogue throughout his career.  Father Raimundo Panikkar, considered by many to be the modern "apostle" of interreligious dialogue, has done extensive work laying the theoretical and theological groundwork for intercultural and interfaith encounter.  His vision is of a non-relativistic pluralism, a nondual perspective which seeks to avoid the pitfalls of relativism, monism, and dualism.  Many other examples could be named as well.  One of the most recent developments, of course, is the creation of the Integral Spiritual Center, a "crucible of lineage minds" in which leaders of various spiritual traditions meet to instruct each other in and explore the contemplative practices of their respective disciplines.
 
As I mentioned in my essay for the Zaadz symposium, the pluralistic intuition which informs this movement has ancient roots.  A principle tenet of Jainism, for instance, is anekantavada, translated as non-one-perspectivism  or non-absolutism -- a non-reductionistic, pluralistic perspective which was born out of the intense interreligious dialogue which was taking place at that time.  This perspective would not likely be considered "integral," by our current understanding, but it is an important precursor which I believe should be honored as we approach the frontiers of a new way of being together.
 
The Practice of Deep Dialogue
 
In my summary of recent movements and developments in the field of interreligious dialogue, I saved one for last:  the work of The Global Dialogue Institute.  I didn't save it for last because it is the most significant, but simply because I wanted to highlight some of its principles, which I think will be helpful in considering and formulating an integral approach to deep intersubjective work in the field of interreligious relations.  As with some of the previous exemplars, this movement focuses primarily on working with the "'opinion-shapers' of society" -- the leaders of various religious and cultural groups.  I believe this is appropriate, as success in this arena will likely contribute to further collaborative interfaith efforts and the creation of an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect which will infuse faith-specific practices and injunctions.

The Global Dialogue Institute offers a number of core documents to guide the dialogue process.  I will touch on two here, copying the text of one in full and linking to the other.  The first text, the Dialogue Decalogue, has been translated into more than a dozen languages.  It consists of ten "commandments" for engaging in deep dialogue, which are as follows:

FIRST COMMANDMENT: The primary purpose of dialogue is to learn, that is, to change and grow in the perception and understanding of reality, and then to act accordingly. Minimally, the very fact that I learn that my dialogue partner believes "this" rather than "that" proportionally changes my attitude toward her; and a change in my attitude is a significant change in me. We enter into dialogue so that we can learn, change, and grow, not so we can force change on the other, as one hopes to do in debate--a hope realized in inverse proportion to the frequency and ferocity with which debate is entered into. On the other hand, because in dialogue each partner comes with the intention of learning and changing herself, one's partner in fact will also change. Thus the goal of debate, and much more, is accomplished far more effectively by dialogue.

SECOND COMMANDMENT: Interreligious, interideological dialogue must be a two-sided project--within each religious or ideological community and between religious or ideological communities. Because of the "corporate" nature of interreligious dialogue, and since the primary goal of dialogue is that each partner learn and change himself, it is also necessary that each participant enter into dialogue not only with his partner across the faith line--the Lutheran with the Anglican, for example--but also with his coreligionists, with his fellow Lutherans, to share with them the fruits of the interreligious dialogue. Only thus can the whole community eventually learn and change, moving toward an ever more perceptive insight into reality.

THIRD COMMANDMENT: Each participant must come to the dialogue with complete honesty and sincerity. It should be made clear in what direction the major and minor thrusts of the tradition move, what the future shifts might be, and, if necessary, where the participant has difficulties with her own tradition. No false fronts have any place in dialogue.

Conversely--each participant must assume a similar complete honesty and sincerity in the other partners. Not only will the absence of sincerity prevent dialogue from happening, but the absence of the assumption of the partner's sincerity will do so as well. In brief: no trust, no dialogue.

FOURTH COMMANDMENT: In interreligious, interideological dialogue we must not compare our ideals with our partner's practice, but rather our ideals with our partner's ideals, our practice with our partner's practice.

FIFTH COMMANDMENT: Each participant must define himself. Only the Jew, for example, can define what it means to be a Jew. The rest can only describe what it looks like from the outside. Moreover, because dialogue is a dynamic medium, as each participant learns, he will change and hence continually deepen, expand, and modify his self-definition as a Jew--being careful to remain in constant dialogue with fellow Jews. Thus it is mandatory that each dialogue partner define what it means to be an authentic member of his own tradition.

Conversely--the one interpreted must be able to recognize herself in the interpretation. This is the golden rule of interreligious hermeneutics, as has been often reiterated by the "apostle of interreligious dialogue," Raimundo Panikkar. For the sake of understanding, each dialogue participant will naturally attempt to express for herself what she thinks is the meaning of the partner's statement; the partner must be able to recognize herself in that expression. The advocate of "a world theology," Wilfred Cantwell Smith, would add that the expression must also be verifiable by critical observers who are not involved.

SIXTH COMMANDMENT: Each participant must come to the dialogue with no hard-and-fast assumptions as to where the points of disagreement are. Rather, each partner should not only listen to the other partner with openness and sympathy but also attempt to agree with the dialogue partner as far as is possible while still maintaining integrity with his own tradition; where he absolutely can agree no further without violating his own integrity, precisely there is the real point of disagreement--which most often turns out to be different from the point of disagreement that was falsely assumed ahead of time.

SEVENTH COMMANDMENT: Dialogue can take place only between equals, or par cum pari as the Second Vatican Council put it. Both must come to learn from each other. Therefore, if, for example, the Muslim views Hinduism as inferior, or if the Hindu views Islam as inferior, there will be no dialogue. If authentic interreligious, interideological dialogue between Muslims and Hindus is to occur, then both the Muslim and the Hindu must come mainly to learn from each other; only then will it be "equal with equal," par cum pari. This rule also indicates that there can be no such thing as a one-way dialogue. For example, Jewish-Christian discussions begun in the 1960s were mainly only prolegomena to inter- religious dialogue. Understandably and properly, the Jews came to these exchanges only to teach Christians, although the Christians came mainly to learn. But, if authentic interreligious dialogue between Christians and Jews is to occur, then the Jews must also come mainly to learn; only then will it too be par cum pari.

EIGHTH COMMANDMENT: Dialogue can take place only on the basis of mutual trust. Although interreligious, interideological dialogue must occur with some kind of "corporate" dimension, that is, the participants must be involved as members of a religious or ideological community--for instance, as Marxists or Taoists--it is also fundamentally true that it is only persons who can enter into dialogue. But a dialogue among persons can be built only on personal trust. Hence it is wise not to tackle the most difficult problems in the beginning, but rather to approach first those issues most likely to provide some common ground, thereby establishing the basis of human trust. Then, gradually, as this personal trust deepens and expands, the more thorny matters can be undertaken. Thus, as in learning we move from the known to the unknown, so in dialogue we proceed from commonly held matters--which, given our mutual ignorance resulting from centuries of hostility, will take us quite some time to discover fully--to discuss matters of disagreement.

NINTH COMMANDMENT: Persons entering into interreligious, interideological dialogue must be at least minimally self-critical of both themselves and their own religious or ideological traditions. A lack of such self-criticism implies that one's own tradition already has all the correct answers. Such an attitude makes dialogue not only unnecessary, but even impossible, since we enter into dialogue primarily so we can learn--which obviously is impossible if our tradition has never made a misstep, if it has all the right answers. To be sure, in interreligious, interideological dialogue one must stand within a religious or ideological tradition with integrity and conviction, but such integrity and conviction must include, not exclude, a healthy self-criticism. Without it there can be no dialogue--and, indeed, no integrity.

TENTH COMMANDMENT: Each participant eventually must attempt to experience the partner's religion or ideology "from within"; for a religion or ideology is not merely something of the head, but also of the spirit, heart, and "whole being," individual and communal. John Dunne here speaks of "passing over" into another's religious or ideological experience and then coming back enlightened, broadened, and deepened. As Raimundo Panikkar notes, "To know what a religion says, we must understand what it says, but for this we must somehow believe in what it says": for example, "A Christian will never fully understand Hinduism if he is not, in one way or another, converted to Hinduism. Nor will a Hindu ever fully understand Christianity unless he, in one way or another, becomes Christian."

The process of deep dialogue unfolds in a series of discrete stages.  GDI outlines seven major stages of this process, which I will not copy here (for space reasons), but which I believe provide a helpful touchstone for exploring our own relationship to deep intersubjective inquiry.  In my view, while these stages mirror v-Memetic evolution to some degree, the fact that we are able to identify with one does not necessarily reflect our prevailing "center of gravity":  we may be at several different stages of this process simultaneously, if we happen to be involved in a dialogical encounter with more than one worldview.  And if our center of gravity is not sufficiently developed, we likely will not be able to meaningfully engage in this process at all.

Integral Deep Dialogue

In the materials from GDI that I have reviewed so far, while they do acknowledge the evolution of knowledge and perspective-taking capacities throughout human history, and therefore do not appear to be advocating mere relativism, I have not seen any attempts to address the rather thorny problem of working with individuals at different levels of v-Memetic development.  One of the gifts of Integral, therefore, will simply be to realistically circumscribe the "reach" and application of deep dialogue.  It is not a dance in which all can participate equally; it is not an invitation to which all will be willing or even able to respond. 

This does not mean that individuals who have engaged deeply in this process will not be able to connect meaningfully with those who are not yet capable of fully extracting its nectar; I believe they can.  Rather, simply recognizing the developmental demands of such an exercise, we will cease with the folly of attempting to apply it equally in all contexts, or of placing unrealistic expectations on it as a direct solution to world violence.  It does have great transformative potential, I am convinced, and I believe that indirectly it can counter the proliferation of sectarian violence and division, but it must be wisely used.  And the Integral developmental map provides a powerful means for making that assessment.

The transformation in perspective mapped by the seven stages of deep dialogue appears to be primarily a transition from Orange to healthy Green, from a perspective which is capable of cognizing universal truths to one which can perceive the truths of multiple worlds (without succumbing to nihilism or mere relativism).  The aim of such dialogue is not only to be able to recognize and honor alternate worldviews, however, but to enter into them and to allow oneself to be transformed by them -- to integrate them in a more complete (but never completable) View.  This work, therefore, can transition into Teal, as individuals come to recognize not only horizontal correspondences (equal if sometimes incommensurate symbol systems), but also depth perspectives which allow for critical evaluation of the nature, role, and adequacy of moral, psychological, and philosophical or theological perspectives.  One can recognize in others' perspectives the traces of where one has been, and perhaps also intimations of spaces one has not yet entered, but only glimpsed.  The process of deep dialogue may not be sufficient to achieve this on its own, but the willingness to critically examine and evaluate the claims of one's own worldview as well as others' (a trait which Panikkar emphasizes as essential) will certainly help to prepare the ground for such a shift.

I am still reflecting on the ways that the Integral movement can maximize this beautiful Green tool.  It clearly can be used in religious institutions to help individuals to transition to more encompassing, worldcentric perspectives -- that is the trajectory clearly laid out in the seven stages.  If facilitators of this process hold an Integral perspective, they can help participants enter healthily into Green, but also challenge them when appropriate to look more deeply, to acknowledge the layered foundations upon which this important transition rests.  There may be yet deeper potentials, however.  That is my intuition.  I may return to a consideration of those potentials in a subsequent entry -- but I invite your comments here as well.

(Go to Part 2)