"YOU AND I" IMPLIES our distinctiveness, our separation, our individuality, our insertion in material and concrete differences, in historical and cultural circumstances. This breeds a reluctance to share what we have, because material things need to be divided to be shared. If you have an apple and I want some part of it, we have to cut it up to share it This may lead to a quarrel about how we cut it up.

In contrast, spiritual realities, such as ideas and ideals, can be shared. We both can share the same ideal of mutual understanding, forgiveness, compassion, and love, if we treat each other in the style of “I and Thou.”

MINDFUL OF THE GROWTH of depersonalization in the 20th century, due to the rise of fascism, communism, socialism, and industrialization, Martin Buber wrote his classic book , "I and Thou," in which he differentiated two kinds of communication styles: “I-it” and “I-Thou.”

Within “I-it” communication, we objectify other people, we pigeon-hole them, we reduce them to a category, a function, a body part, a social security number, to a thing that we can manipulate and control.

In contrast, within “I-Thou” communication, we treat other people as different subjects, as we share the same ideal of mutual understanding, forgiveness, compassion, and love.

Professor Johan Galtung, founder of the International Peace Research Institute, has developed a cross-religious typology claiming to show that religious boundaries do not exist for all practitioners of a faith. He suggests that religious experience can be characterized by its “heat.”

At the center is the intensely hot core of the "mysterium tremendum et fascinans” (Mary Pat Fisher, Religions in the Twentieth Century. Prentice Hall, 1999, p.103). Within the direct mystical experience of the awesome and attractive mystery, the ground of being, the barriers used to delineate different religious organizations lose their meaning.

Imagine a circle in which:

“... The outer edge symbolizes irreconcilable differences, of either practice or doctrine, between the world’s religions. The dividing lines between these various religions become fainter toward the center, showing how people can set aside sectarian differences and share a common spirituality. The central core stands for the direct mystical experience, which transcends individual belief-systems.” (Fisher, p. 105)

ANOTHER WAY TO illustrate this point is to imagine a mountain, at the foot of which--and surrounding its base around the whole circle--are the various world religions.

They are all divided by the time and place of their origins; they continue to be divided by the doctrinal formulations of their faith; by the their institutional organizations; by the investment in real estate; by the power structures they have developed.

Each religion is jealous to maintain its status quo, and even sometimes presume to be the best and even perhaps the only truth about Ultimate Reality.

Since the Ultimate Reality, according to all world religions, is ineffable, then, no words, no doctrines, no religious organizations can satisfactorily express it. Only through the power of the spirit, by prayer, meditation, and contemplation, can we all encounter each other in the mysterium tremendum et fascinans.

As people develop a more spiritual life -- [“God is Spirit and only by Spirit and Truth can we reach him"] -- they climb the mountain from various sides and encounter each other as they approximate the Ultimate Reality.

THAT IS WHY, within the last century, little by little, monks and people of great spiritual faith have been visiting each other and sharing with each their spiritual experiences. Hindus with Buddhists, Buddhists with Christians, Christians with Hindus, Jews with Christians, Christians with Muslims, Muslims with Jews, and so forth.

Out of these interreligious dialogue has emerged a better understanding and appreciation of each other’s faith, all stemming from various different cultural experiences of the Ultimate Reality.

Today, after a century of bloody wars of religion, we need to take a new perspective on our mutual relationships.

Diana Heck, Professor of Comparative Religion and Indian studies at Harvard University, identified three basic ways in which religions may relate to one another.

One of these is exclusivism, the idea that one’s own way is the only true way.

This feeling is not trivial, for deep belief is central to religious faith. However, if this belief is mirrored by its rigid corollary -- [“My faith is the only true faith; therefore all other religions are false and cannot be tolerated”] -- we will see a hardening of religious boundaries, schisms, and conflicts.

These processes go on within, as well as between, religions. This problem has been a serious one, especially for Christians, who assume that the first commandment is to convert the whole world to Christianity, by persuasion (or, unfortunately, by force, is it was done several times during the centuries).

Paul Knitter, a member of the Theology Department of Xavier University, in Cincinnati, has proposed a better understanding of Jesus’ command, which opens new possibilities for interreligious dialogue. He suggests the following:

“The first commandment of Christ to Christians is not a ‘missionary mandate’ to go forth and make disciples of all nations, but is, of course, to love one’s neighbors.... What, after all, does love mean, but to respect someone, to honor them, to really listen with an authentic openness to what they are saying?” (p.169, in The Other Half of My Soul: Bede Griffiths and the Hindu-Christian Dialogue. Quest Books, 1996).

Respectful Stance

A SECOND FORM OF interrelationship is inclusivism. This is the idea that there should be a single world religion, or that one’s own religion is sufficiently spacious to accommodate all others.

In this approach, the dissimilarities between religions are disregarded in favor of generalized unity. Many old and recent attempts have been made to incorporate bits and pieces of other religions into a single one, as sometimes, Hinduism, Roman Catholicism, and more recently the New Age movement have unsuccessfully attempted.

A third approach, which Eck favors, is what she calls religious pluralism. In this, one keeps one’s own religion and yet at the same time maintains a curious, friendly, and respectful stance toward the beliefs and practices of people of other faiths.

To transcend exclusivism and move toward a more pluralistic relationship between religions has been the goal of the interfaith movement. That is what the United Religions initiative is trying to pursue worldwide with encounters devoted to prayer, meditation, dialogue, and mutual projects, all aimed at fostering world and religious peace.

That is what Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, and Moslems in the Huntington area have begun to do with their gatherings at the Campus Christian Center of Marshall University. We addressed each other as “I-Thou,” with respect, dignity, forgiveness, mutual understanding and love.

We have some leaders in this respect: Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, and many others.

From our various religious affiliations, we understand the need for an interreligious dialogue in order to promote religious and world peace, first of all, in our own area, and hoping this movement will spread to the surrounding counties, states, nations and continents beyond.