The awakening of a truly ecumenical consciousness in monastic circles these last ten years is inspiring. The “conscientization” done by the AIM North American Board for East–West Dialogue has contributed to it in great measure. We are also thankful for this activity of keeping the networks of the heart alive. The changes are visible. I still remember some twenty years ago how many Christian monks were shocked by the idea that to be a monk is substantive, and to be Catholic, Buddhist or whatever, is adjectival. To be sure, in every monk the adjective is transcendentally united with the noun. I am a Christian monk, as I am human, male, Indian, and so forth. But a Buddhist monk qua monk is not less a monk than a Christian monk, as a black qua black is no less a person than a white for that matter.

We are now discovering that fidelity and love for one’s own tradition does not entail considering other traditions as inferior. The deeper we are steeped in Christ, for instance, the more our fear to “lose him” disappears, and all the more we are able to understand and to accept symbols so central for other people, without diluting our commitment to and belief in the uniqueness of our way and of our symbols.

The influence of modern scientific thinking on matters spiritual and of life has been deleterious. Something is unique, not when it is better or worse, but when it cannot be compared. It is incommensurable. Any comparison misses the point. Comparison is a quantitative category, and life is incomparable. Not all is reducible to scientific calculus. But all these ideas would have remained barren if the praxis had not accompanied and even preceded them. We may reflect on the praxis. But praxis is primary in as much as life is spontaneous. Saint Dionysius the Aeropagite (let us leave academic quibbles apart) wrote to the monk Caius that “if someone seeing God would know what he saw, he did not see God.” (Si quis videns Deum cognovit quod vidit, ipsum Deum non vidit.) The Desert Fathers liked to repeat that if the monks knew they were praying they were no longer praying. If Christians know they are unique by despising, neglecting, or even feeling superior to others, they cease to be unique and are no longer Christian. If monks know themselves to be better (or even worse—a Buddhist will understand!) they cease to be monks. “Do not judge” has been written.

We have been engaged these last ten years in listening more, loving more, learning from all quarters and we are happy about this. Blessed are those who don’t do Comparative Mysticism! They know there is no yardstick (Raimundo Panikkar).

* * *
In 1974, Cardinal Pignedoli, the then President of the Secretariat for Non-Christians, wrote to the Abbot Primate of the Benedictine Order of the “primary role that monasticism plays in the meeting with non-Christian religions.” The presence of monasticism in the Catholic Church, he said, is a bridge linking us to all other religions, since the monk is the most typical example of the homo religious and as such represents a point of contact and mutual understanding between Christians and non-Christians. It was as a result of this initiative on the part of the Holy See that the Benedictine Order through the agency of AIM (Inter-Monastic Aid) took up the work of dialogue with other religions through the organization of DIM (Interreligious Monastic Dialogue) in Europe and the North American Board for East–West Dialogue in the United States.

The NABEWD has been continuing this work now for ten years and it is worthwhile reflecting over what has been achieved in these years. One may best begin with the work of the Bulletin which began publication in 1978 with an initial circulation of 250 and has continued ever since to present a fascinating survey of the different forms the dialogue has been taking allover the world, while its circulation has grown to 1,800. This alone is a remarkable achievement as it has kept the monastic world aware of the work of dialogue with other religions throughout the world more effectively than any other work in English. The focus is, of course, on inter-monastic dialogue but this alone gives an insight into the gradual growth of mutual understanding which is the effect of dialogue.

Another work of the Board has been the sponsoring of conferences and symposia among Christian monastics to make them more aware of the value and significance of dialogue and promoting books and tapes of Christian monks engaged in dialogue. But more important than this has been the actual collaboration with monks of other religions, particularly Buddhists in conferences and seminars. Above all, I would emphasize the organization of programs of monastic hospitality, especially with Tibetan monks. It is well known that the Dalai Lama has been extremely open to such meetings and the actual experience of living with monks of another religion is a unique experience for a Christian monastic. It is with Buddhists on the whole that dialogue has been most enriching and perhaps we need to look more to dialogue with Hindus and Muslims, especially the Sufis.

It is difficult to assess what has taken place in these last ten years. The change of attitude on the part of the Church towards other religions has been so dramatic that it is as though we were living in another world. How deeply it has affected the monastic order as a whole it would be difficult to say, but certainly there is a new openness to Eastern values among monks today. But we have still a long way to go. The real encounter of the Catholic Church with the religions of Asia has hardly begun and the challenge before the monastic order today is to enter in depth into the experience of God or, as in Buddhism, of ultimate Reality, in the religions of Asia and relate that experience to the experience of God in Christ in the West (Bede Griffiths, OSB).

We are trying to dialogue with the East which is basically contemplative, and practices related to contemplation are second nature to it. Only a contemplative presentation of Christianity could make any dent on the Eastern mind. This was the insight of Cardinal Pignodeli when he urged Western monastics to be a bridge. We owe some of the present return to our contemplative roots to our Eastern brothers and sisters who came here saying: “Here is our contemplative tradition. Where is yours?” We have seen ten years of vigorous growth among Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and Sufi communities founded by expert spiritual teachers from these traditions in the USA. It is important to listen to them. One of the fruits of this confrontation for our monastics is to recover and develop our own spiritual tradition.