In the Netherlands the first official inter-religious dialogues were initiated in the first half of the 1970s. But the Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk, one of the most important churches had taken the first steps towards an attitude of dialogue already in 1949 and 1950. The atrocities against the Jews and the deportation of the 90 per cent of the Dutch Jews in the Second World War as well as the solidarity deeply felt by many church members with the new state of Israel prompted this church, and later two other large mainline churches, to alter their attitudes towards Jews and Judaism. After 1970 they extended these dialogues to Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, who together outnumber the Jews today. The altered Dutch religious landscape had made inter-religious dialogue inevitable. This dialogue was held with migrants, so the position of the adherents of non-Christian religions was weaker than that of Christians. This inequality is reflected in the dialogue, for it became predominantly a dialogue of life, in which the Christians started with helping their partners to find a good position in Dutch society. The dialogue with the Jews, however, already quickly became a dialogue of the mind. In the second half of the 1990s a dialogue of the mind was initiated with Muslims, and in the first decade of the twenty-first century with some Hindus. The vulnerability of migrants was underscored by the impact of the governments in their countries of origin and by the fact that the Christians paid for almost everything. In 2000 the churches began to hesitate; nonetheless they remained in dialogue.
This article compares the oldest Hindu versions of the Golden Rule found in the Mahabharata with those in the gospels. What may the Hindu texts, which usually receive little attention, contribute to the understanding of the New Testament renditions? Methodologically the article draws from Clooney's Comparative Theology and Moyaert's approach of hermeneutical hospitality. In the Hindu texts the rule is understood in terms of ahimsa (non-violence). This seems to be close to Luke's version, in which the maxim is closely connected with the appeal to love one's enemies. The Mahabharata, however, reveals also the maxim's potency to use reciprocity as a strategy for making peace. So, the reciprocity stressed in Matthew is also important.Ré sumé : Le présent article compare des versions hindoues les plus anciennes de la Règle d'Or trouvées dans le Mahabharata avec celles des évangiles. Comment le choix des mots hindous, qui d'ordinaire ne nous intéresse guère, peut-il nous aider à comprendre l'interprétation du Nouveau Testament ? Mon récit se base méthodiquement sur la théologie comparative de Clooney et l'approche herméneutique de Moyaert. Dans les textes hindous, la règle de conduite est comprise en termes de non violence, ahimsa. Ceci donne une place prépondérante à la version de Luc, puisque cette maxime, dans l'évangile de Luc, est étroitement liée à la demande que nous aimions nos ennemis. En fait, le Mahabharata nous révèle aussi la richesse de la formulation en utilisant, comme stratégie, la corrélation dans l'établissement de la paix. Cette idée de réciprocité est éga-lement importante dans l'évangile de Mathieu.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.