In this section, I shall turn to how in the context of Schelling’s philosophy, we can understand the event of interreligious dialogue itself. As I mentioned in the previous chapter, according to Schelling the relationship between humanity and God is one of creative cooperation. The outcomes of this cooperation are what we call ‘religions’ and their symbolic objectifications of the Absolute. However, these symbols are neither the product of nor are they in communication with a lone individual. As mentioned above, Gabriel describes mythology in Schelling as the conditioned manifestation of the unconditioned. He also notes that mythology is institutionalized insofar as it grounds a set of manifestations of the unconditioned, which are typical
…show more content…
If these symbologies are connected to particular communities, to engage in interreligious dialogue with them is then to look for the functional equivalences between our symbology and theirs. However, we can only do so if we are willing to listen and learn how the members of this community participatively engage their own symbols. Firstly, we have to develop an account of our religious background which can bridge the latter to the symbolism of other traditions. Hence, on the ground of that, we can understand how our interlocutors relate themselves to their symbols, insofar as to them such symbols are living objectifications of God, or whatever else they imagine as the source of their spirituality. In this way, we have to aim to understand how these symbols work for people from the inside of their respective religious community in order to find equivalences between the two different sets of symbols. Secondly, we can refer back to our symbols once we have established these equivalences. In order to accomplish the first step it is necessary to engage in an act of imagination analogous to that which the members of the other tradition perform as the foundation of their religious lives. This follows insofar as in order to grasp from the inside how some religious symbols work for a certain community, we have to learn to look at them through the perspective of an insider of that
If these symbologies are connected to particular communities, to engage in interreligious dialogue with them is then to look for the functional equivalences between our symbology and theirs. However, we can only do so if we are willing to listen and learn how the members of this community participatively engage their own symbols. Firstly, we have to develop an account of our religious background which can bridge the latter to the symbolism of other traditions. Hence, on the ground of that, we can understand how our interlocutors relate themselves to their symbols, insofar as to them such symbols are living objectifications of God, or whatever else they imagine as the source of their spirituality. In this way, we have to aim to understand how these symbols work for people from the inside of their respective religious community in order to find equivalences between the two different sets of symbols. Secondly, we can refer back to our symbols once we have established these equivalences. In order to accomplish the first step it is necessary to engage in an act of imagination analogous to that which the members of the other tradition perform as the foundation of their religious lives. This follows insofar as in order to grasp from the inside how some religious symbols work for a certain community, we have to learn to look at them through the perspective of an insider of that