“Gifts of Light”—Chiara Lubich’s Mystical Narrative with Hindus: An Analysis of a Hindu–Christian Dialogue Experience

Abstract

The present paper offers a presentation and a phenomenological analysis of a rather unusual event in the sphere of interreligious dialogue: a Catholic woman, the protagonist of a mystical experience, shared some of the traits of this experience with people of another culture and religion. The protagonists of this experience include Chiara Lubich and a group of Hindus, some neo-Vedanta scholars and other social activists inspired by Gandhian philosophy and ideals. These pages represent an initial study of this case, which, at least so far, appears to be rather unique.

1. Introduction

Before entering into the specific topic of the present study1, a few introductory elements will help to describe the background against which, between 2001 and 2004, the encounter between Chiara Lubich2 and a group of Hindus took place. We will briefly examine the geopolitical situation of the world at the turn of the millennium, Hindu–Christian relationships and the approach of the Church towards efforts taken by Indian Catholic theologians in order to foster a dialogue between the two religions. These elements will be useful to put this experience into context.

At the dawn of the third millennium, the world’s geopolitical scenario appeared rather complex and variegated. One decade had already passed since the collapse of the Berlin wall, an event that was symbolic of the sudden implosion and splintering of what was known as the Eastern Bloc during the decades of the Cold War. These historical developments had given the Western world—and the United States in particular—the conviction of having won the Cold War. Ethically speaking, in Western Europe and North America, many people shared the certainty that the West had defeated the “kingdom of evil”3, and that, somehow, nothing could come in the way of capitalism as the governing system of the world. Globalization was at its height and seemed to be unstoppable. Yet, by the end of 2001, the situation and feelings of the West would be dramatically different. The 9/11 tragedy, in fact, transformed the world and sent signals that were interpreted as a new war to be fought: the war that Huntington defined as a “clash of civilizations” (Huntington 1996). After the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers and the subsequent attacks in Europe and different parts of the world, the new enemy was Islam, a religion. At the same time, the West, which Berger had described a few years earlier as the world in which religion was supposed to disappear due to secularization (Berger 2014), started witnessing something unexpected: the “return of religions from the exile” (Petito and Hatzopoulos 2004). Someone dared to state: “God is back” (Micklethwait and Wooldridge 2009). This was something that caught many social and political analysts who had strongly believed that religion was destined to have no future by surprise. Among scholars, the perception started growing that it was necessary to study the new role that religions unexpectedly seemed to be playing in the public sphere of life.

In order to properly evaluate the experience that is at the center of this paper, it is necessary to take into account the status of the relationships between Christianity and the Hindu world. These relationships cannot be entirely grasped if we do not consider the heavy burden left behind by the heritage of colonial times in the Indian subcontinent, mainly the colonialism of the Portuguese and British and, to a far more limited extent, the French and Dutch. Colonialism was representative of a time during which, on the one side, rampant Christian proselytizing activities took place, and, on the other hand, the attitude of Hindus who tried to resist the apologetic attacks of foreign missionaries was defensive. Missionaries attempted to convert as many people as possible to Christianity. Nevertheless, the Indian ethos, especially in the 19th century, experienced a significant attraction towards the figure of Jesus. However, the Hindu philosophy, even when appreciative of the figure of Christ, cannot ignore the gap between Him and his teaching, on the one hand, and the lack of practice and consistency on the part of Christians, on the other (Rambachan 2002, p. 342). In general, in terms of Hindu sensitiveness, Christianity was—and still largely remains—a proselytizing faith, whose ministers never appreciated other religious truths and scriptures. On the contrary, they were tagged as ‘pagans’ and ‘heathens’. However, for some time, many attempts have been made at a constructive encounter between representatives of the two religions.4 These often run the risk of being appreciated but also considered as isolated examples, certainly outstanding in the commitment and engagement of their protagonists, but alien to mainstream Christianity. Moreover, even more recently, “Hindu involvement in dialogue was considerably influenced by anxieties about missionary intentions and programs” (Rambachan 2002, p. 342). There have been many encouraging examples of constructive Hindu–Christian encounters after the Council. However, until today, most Hindus believe that conversion remains the main concern and aim of Christians, even when they pretend to propose an experience of dialogue. The Hindu fear that this may be part of a larger world evangelical agenda (Rambachan 2002, pp. 342–43) was seemingly confirmed at the very end of last millennium by a sentence pronounced by Pope John Paul II. In 1999, during his second visit to India, while in New Delhi, on the occasion of the release of Ecclesia in Asia, the final document of the Synod for the Asian continent, which was held in Rome a couple of years earlier, the pope pronounced the following words:

The Synod, which we are closing today, rejoiced at the thought of Jesus’s birth on Asian soil. The Eternal Word took flesh as an Asian! And it was on this continent, through the preaching of the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit, that the Church went forth to spread the Good News. With Christians throughout the world, the Church in Asia will cross the threshold of the new millennium, giving thanks for all that God has worked from those beginnings until now. Just as the first millennium saw the Cross firmly planted in the soil of Europe, and the second in that of America and Africa, so may the Third Christian Millennium witness a great harvest of faith on this vast and vital continent.

(Pope John Paul II 1999)

In many Hindus, these words reinforced the conviction that a hidden, concerted agenda for conversion was at work within Christianity. The recent years in which the Bharatya Janata Party (BJP) came to power have further demonstrated the problematic relationship between the Hindutva agenda and the life of the Catholic Church. Yet, at the turn of the millenium, though the progress of Hindu fundamentalism was constant and already worrysome, there were many possibilities for opening avenues of constructive dialogue.5

A third element that is important to keep in mind in order to contextualize our study was the tension between the Holy See—especially the then Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith6—and a group of theologians, some Indians and others of different nationalities who had worked in the subcontinent for a long time. The post-Council period, in fact, witnessed a praiseworthy commitment of the Catholic Church in India towards an enculturation process in order to make Christianity less alien to the Hindu ethos. In the first two decades, in order to implement the Council reforms and to open up towards people of different religions, the Catholic Bishops Conference of India (CBCI) worked in two main directions. Initially, the commitment was basically at the liturgical level and in the theological field. Yet, both attempts were rather controversial. On the one hand, Indian Catholics—especially the laity—found it problematic and confusing to accept new forms of liturgy, which they perceived more as an attempt to hinduize traditional Christian rituals rather than enculturating them. On the other, the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, on more than one occasion, objected to some new theological categories formulated by Indian Catholic thinkers, as they seemed to deprive Christianity of its specific identity, running the risk of falling into a syncretic attitude. Vatican authorities targeted some theologians, asking them to stop teaching in theological faculties. The most noted controversy saw as its unfortunate protagonist Jacques Dupuis, a Belgian Jesuit priest who had lived in India for many decades (O’Connell and Dupuis 2017). Furthermore, towards the end of 2000, the same Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith published Dominus Jesus, a document that was meant to clarify controversial points, especially in the Christological field. Yet, this Vatican document met with opposite reactions. Some bishops and scholars welcomed it as a long-expected clarification about controversial issues, which, in their opinion, could have led to theological errors and misunderstandings. Others voiced their bitter criticism against Dominus Jesus. They tagged it as an attempt to move backward to pre-Vatican II times and claimed that it was an inopportune interference by Roman authorities. Vatican offices were accused of being unable to understand the Indian mentality, and the effort of the local Church engaged in showing Hindus a clear change of direction of Christianity towards an appreciation of their culture and religion. The three elements we have described represent the background against which, at the end of 2000, Chiara Lubich, invited by some prominent representatives of the Gandhian Movement, visited India for the first time (Zanzucchi 2001; Catalano 2010; Menezes 2020). She would return for a second journey in 2003.

2. Chiara Lubich and Her Friendship with Hindus

Already towards the end of the 1990s, thanks to the involvement of several leaders of the Focolare at events organized by the World Conference for Religions and Peace (WCRP), the Movement came into contact with the then President of WCRP International, Dr. M. Aram, and his family. Dr. Aram, a convinced and practicing follower of Gandhian spirit and values, was well known for his peace initiatives in the northeast Indian state of Nagaland, where, for two decades, underground and independence-oriented guerrillas and the Indian Army engaged in bloody warfare. Later, in early 80s, Dr. Aram established Shanti Ashram, a Gandhian-inspired social and human development center, located near the city of Coimbatore (Tamil Nadu State). A warm friendship developed between Dr. Aram and the Focolare, leading to the sharing of ideals, life experiences and dreams. Towards the end of the last millennium, on several occasions, Lubich expressed her desire to visit India in order to meet with some representatives of the world of Hinduism. In the previous two decades, in fact, she had fruitful interfaith encounters with Mahayana Buddhists in Japan (twice in the eighties), with Theravada Buddhists in Thailand, with Jews in Argentina and with African American Muslims in the United States (all in the course of the nineties) (Catalano 2010). Her attraction towards India and its religions appeared to be an interest in a religious world that she perceived as crucial for the progress of the promising experience that her Movement had developed in the context of interreligious dialogue. The opportunity for the Italian Catholic leader to journey to the Indian sub-continent came in 2000, thanks to an invitation from the Shanti Ashram and the Sarvodaya movement of South India, which decided to institute the Gandhi Peace Award and unanimously named Lubich as its first recipient. Simultaneously, the Conference of Catholic Bishops of India7(CCBI) extended an invitation to the founder of the Focolare to address the bi-annual Plenary Assembly to be held at Morning Star College, Barackpore, near Kolkata. Lubich accepted both invitations, and she finally arrived in India, where she spent almost a month between the end of December 2000 and January 2001. During her stay, she entertained friendly and deeply spiritual relations with two groups of Hindus. In the southern city of Coimbatore—on the occasion of the award ceremony—she met with Minoti Aram, her daughter, Dr. Kezevino Aram, and a number of scholars and social activists with a Gandhian background (Narayanasamy 2003; Chakrabarty 2005). Among them, some were well-known and outstanding dignitaries8, both at the local and national level. Later, in Mumbai, she met with scholars of neo-Vedanta schools (Vivekananda 2019; Saradananda 2016; Kapoor 2003)9 from Somaiya Sanskriti Peetham, Bharatya Vidhya Bhavan and Mumbai Vidhya Peeth (Bombay University)10. These encounters provoked mixed feelings in the Catholic leader. On the one hand, she acknowledged the great spiritual richness of India, which she considered a potential asset for and contribution to the whole of humanity. On the 2nd of January 2001, she noted down in her diary:

The more we enter into contact with India—and we have only been here for just a few days!—the more it reveals itself to us as a world which is immense, with a concentration of realities and its own unique hallmark, not easy for westerners to decipher; a world which presents a picture of unity in all the richness of its diversity. We feel that before us lies a jewel box full of spiritual treasures, of attraction towards mysticism encompassing the whole of human nature—a mysticism which is certainly not extraneous to the work of God. And this treasure chest can be opened by those who approach it with respect, with love and above all with the conviction that God has so much to tell us through this ancient culture.

(Lubich 2001)

On the other hand, Lubich also experienced the mysterious dimension of the Indian culture and its religious expressions. For instance, after a meeting with some swamies and other clerics, she could not hide a sort of dismay, which again emanates from her personal diary:

This afternoon, we spent two hours with some monks, priests of ancient temples, in the new centre of Dr Mahalingam, an industrialist and philosopher, who was present. It was an encounter with the Indian world as it is, with its traditions, in many aspects primitive, syncretistic, and to all appearances impenetrable! … I had thought I would be addressing people with a theological background, and so the talk I had prepared was a bit … elevated. I do not know how much of it they were able to absorb. We will need centuries, perhaps, to see any change.

(Lubich 2001)

These impressions, along with new developments in Hindu–Christian dialogue, were also topics of discussion during a stimulating dialogue in which Lubich engaged with the CCBI bishops. Many of them expressed their appreciation for the new friendship established between the Catholic ecclesial movement and Hindus of different streams and organizations (Zanzucchi 2001; Catalano 2010; Menezes 2020).

The Idea of a Symposium and Its Characteristics

The meetings held in India between Lubich (and the Focolare) and Hindu scholars and social activists were so spiritually deep, and the experience of dialogue so promising, that leaders decided to continue meeting in the spirit of interfaith friendship. Apart from different follow-up activities to be held in India, a Hindu–Christian symposium was planned to take place in Castelgandolfo (near Rome) in order to together pursue (by both Christians and Hindus) the way of dialogue (Catalano 2010; Menezes 2020)11. The Symposium took place in June 2002, after a six-month joint preparation process. The participants were some fifty delegates, respectively, from India and from the Abba School12, the study center of the Focolare Movement, based at its headquarters but with members from different countries and experts in numerous disciplines. It is also important to note that this was the first time that the Focolare Movement held such a cultural event, in which it had no experience. Lubich decided to take part in the entire program, and she clearly represented the inspiration for all people present, Christians and Hindus alike. She herself had no idea of what was to develop or how the symposium would unfold. However, she was optimistic, the feeling of which surfaces from a short improvised welcome address to the participants when she confessed: “I feel a great joy and a sense of anticipation. I am sure that new horizons will open up before us if God dwells among us” (Lubich 2002a). The conference title, chosen in common agreement, was “The Bhakti Way of Love towards God and our Brothers and Sisters. Devotion in the Hindu Tradition and in the Christian Experience of the Spirituality of Communion”. Giuseppe Zanghì, coordinator of the Abba School, summarized the spirit and the vision of the event well. In his opening address, he underlined the desire to reach a common understanding and a spiritual dimension, which could be well expressed with the word ‘unity’. This is not only a Christian sentiment, as a passage from the Rg Veda it already effectively expressed this idea:

Meet together and speak with one another: may your minds be in total agreement. They have the place in common; the assembly in common; the mind in common; likewise, may their thought be united. May your purpose be one and the same and may your minds be in agreement; may the thoughts of all be united so that all may happily agree.

(see Dhavamony 1987, p. 52)

Zanghì reminded the people attending the conference that the Christian apostle Paul expressed the same concept in Christian terms when he recommended to the Philippians: “Be of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking one thing” (Phil 2:2). The desire of those present for the days of the symposium was summarized in words taken from Rabindranath Tagore: “May God in our midst accompany us, enlighten us, and guide us with His blessing. May He unite us in a relationship of good will” (see Dhavamony 1987, p. 199).

In order to achieve this challenging goal, it was decided to follow a two-fold methodology. From an academic viewpoint, Christians presented papers pertaining to the Christian doctrine or experiences, and Hindus did the same regarding Hinduism, its aspects, doctrine, saints, etc. This would ensure that each of the two religions could present itself and its contents from its own viewpoint and not from the understanding of the other. Following the various presentations, there was time allotted for dialogue when questions could be mutually addressed to the speakers. From a spiritual viewpoint, in her opening remarks, Lubich herself proposed that each of the persons present should strive to put into practice that which, from the Christian viewpoint, is called love and can be universally found in the ‘golden rule’. Dr. Kala Acharya effectively expressed this idea with Hindu sensitiveness when she stated:

[For Hinduism] the three traditional ways of union are yoga, that is, path of union, ways of union: the first is the way of knowledge, the second is the way of devotion, and the third one is the way of action. … Chiara proposed a different path, and that is the path of love. We can call it; premyoga’. She does not want us to love only God and to be united only with God. She wants us to share this love with our neighbours through service. That is premyoga: union in love.

(Acharya 2002)

3. Chiara Lubich’s Mystical Experience: Paradise ’49 or Gifts of Light

In the course of this Symposium, a crucial moment occurred when Lubich shared that which she entitled Gifts of Light. She meant to share her mystical experience during the summer of 1949, known as Paradise ‘49, with the group of Hindus present. Recently, a few studies have been published (Mitchell 2020; Tobler 2022) that carry rich considerations of this topic. Therefore, I will propose only a few points, which I consider crucial in order to appreciate this contribution to Catholic–Hindu dialogue.

3.1. General Characteristics and Connotations of Paradise ‘49

First of all, Paradise ’49 has all the necessary connotations that make it possible to be defined as a mystical experience. However, it is “not something uprooted from the bodily drama of earth and history in order to be lived in an ethereal region of the pure spirit. It is the experience of having one’s feet firmly on the ground while the heart and mind are immersed in Heaven, in God” (Coda 2020, p. 19). This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the main protagonist of this event is a rather common person. Lubich was a schoolteacher, twenty-nine years old at the time of this event, who had already decided to dedicate herself to living the Christian Scriptures in daily life in the midst of society, rejecting the idea of being confined to a convent as a requirement to live an existence totally dedicated to God. Lubich was always convinced of the beauty and necessity of living the Gospel in the midst of the world. She defined this as the “great attraction of modern times” (Lubich 2005, pp. 14–15), showing that mysticism was ‘intrinsic’ to her spirituality (Tobler 2022, p. 2). Far from remaining purely spiritual, Lubich’s ideal reaches the point of possessing a political dimension (Steinmair-Pösel 2019) and impacting other domains, such as economics, education, sociology and psychology, which are usually considered—especially in modernity—to be alien to the spiritual domain (Baggio 2020). Moreover, Lubich was never alone—even during Paradise ’49—in her spiritual journey. On 7 December 1943, she began with a personal act of consecration to God. However, she was almost immediately joined by a group of people who gathered around her and soon made a commitment to live the cardinal points of the original spirituality that progressively unfolded, focusing on fraternity, love and, above all, on unity as the main goal of Christian life. Along the new spiritual journey, in a relatively short time, the participants all acknowledged a “qualitative leap”, which “she and her first companions experienced as they became aware that their Christian life was reaching a new level of intensity when they strove to live a pact of mutual love among themselves” (Coda 2020, p. 21). The effects of this new development were significant and unknown to the practitioners before then: joy, peace, freedom, ardor, strength and the courage to pursue perseverance. These feelings represented the evidence that the risen Christ, who promised his apostles to remain present in history and, more specifically, in the Church, could be “perceived by the senses of the soul of Chiara, and … by her community in its everyday life … the risen Jesus was truly in their midst” (Coda 2020, p. 21). Here, there was a great novelty, at least for the Catholic understanding of that time: the possibility of a living mystical dimension in the midst of society while performing one’s daily routine. The novelty was the perception of Jesus’ presence within the community and in history, according to His promise expressed in Mathew’s Gospel: “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst” (Mt. 18.20). This initial experience of a growing community of people deeply spiritually linked with one another in their effort to live the Scriptures was the path that led Lubich to Paradise ’49, which was opened up by a “pact of unity” (Pelli 2020, pp. 113–36) between Lubich and Igino Giordani (1894–1980)13. This was not the first time Lubich agreed with her spiritual friends to make new commitments in their spiritual journey14. In the Dolomite Mountains, on 16 July 1949, Lubich and Giordani agreed to offer their ‘nothingness of love’ to God. It was a ‘pact of unity’ in Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist. This was the crucial step that opened the mystical journey through which God unexpectedly guided Lubich for several months, well into 1950. Without underplaying the personal commitment, Paradise ’49 carries a distinctive communitarian dimension. In fact, Lubich is not the only protagonist—or the subject—of this spiritual journey. Though she remains the one experiencing mysticism in the first person, Paradise ’49 has clear connotations of an intense community experience, as it is lived and shared with Giordani and with a group of early companions. We are faced here by a ‘plural’ or ‘communitarian’ mystical subject, who participates, with different degrees but always ‘together’, in a unique experience of God. It is true that in her account, Lubich speaks in the first person. She is the real witness of the different ‘intellectual visions’ that constitute Paradise ’49. Nevertheless, she also speaks on behalf of a group, which, at a certain moment of the mystical journey, she named ‘the Soul’, a ‘we’ who are ‘one’ in Christ (Coda 2020, p. 23). In summary, Paradise ’49 can be defined as a series of ‘intense illuminations’, lasting over a year, which Lubich herself defined in the following lines:

It was truly the religious vision of the universe, the religious vision of the world. That is the way God sees the world, how God sees things, how God sees creatures, how God sees Paradise.

(Lubich 2019, p. 4)

The strong communitarian connotation of this mystical experience initially prompted the Italian woman to share it with as many people as possible, and she did this with letters addressed to Igino Giordani, in oral sharing with her immediate companions and through notes in the form of a diary. This process stopped when, in the fifties, the newly born Movement went through an in-depth investigation by the Holy Office in the Vatican, which was called upon to prove the orthodoxy of Lubich’s Movement and experiences (Abignente 2017, pp. 173–79). Much later, in the 1970s, urged by the noted theologian Klaus Hemmerle, bishop of Aachen in Germany (Hagemann 2008), Lubich accepted the idea of collecting and deepening her notes and letters. She did this with and through a group of scholars who were called to form the Abba School, a study group born in 1990 that worked in close collaboration with Lubich until 2004. Their joint effort ensured that Lubich could leave behind a consolidated edition of writings, describing her experience of Paradise ’49 with comments and clarifications (Tobler 2022, p. 5).

3.2. Lubich’s Sharing of Her “Gifts of Light” with Hindus

The fact that Lubich decided to share her mystical experience with people who were not followers of the Christian faith may appear as a great surprise and rather mysterious. In fact, this presentation was not part of the original program of the event. Yet, during the symposium, unexpectedly, Lubich decided to share that which, without any doubt, was the most precious spiritual treasure she experienced during her long life. The decision caught her closer collaborators by surprise. They were very much aware of the reluctance always shown by this Catholic woman to share this aspect of her spiritual experience. The prompting for this decision came, by Lubich’s own admission, from a spiritually and intellectually stimulating presentation made by Prof. Shubada Joshi, who focussed on the “The evolution of the concept of Bhakti (devotion) in Hinduism”. In her paper, the woman scholar from Mumbai University delved into many aspects of the experience of the divine according to the Hindu tradition. She underlined how Divinity can be expressed and experienced in many ways—for instance, as a color (white pure, golden, bright light) or as a subtle sound, Om, and in other ways—until the final experience that, for a Hindu devotee, means merging with the Divine. Lubich was deeply struck by Joshi’s presentation, above all by the depth of the spiritual experience emanating from it. She immediately perceived similarities in the language and symbolism between the Christian and Hindu mystical dimensions. At the same time, Prof. Kala Acharya made a personal request. She wished to know some elements and moments of Lubich’s deep experience of the Divine. On these two premises, Lubich presented some of the initial pages of her experience, which, for the occasion, she presented as Gifts of light. She would do it again on two other occasions: in January 2003, in Mumbai, during her second trip to India, and during a second Hindu–Christian symposium, held again in Castelgandolfo in April 2004.

3.3. The Methodology of Communicating a Narrative

It may be interesting to examine how the communication took place and what kind of narrative Lubich used in order to share her most profound experience of God as a Christian with Hindus. I will highlight four points, which appear to me significant for our analyses, as well as three basic fundamental attitudes.

3.3.1. God-Centeredness and Holy Ground

In the first place, Lubich’s attitude and narrative were characterized by a clear God-Centeredness, which emerged during her whole presentation. In a way, this seems to confirm M.H. Mitias’ perspective when he affirms that the centrality of God is “the essential requisite, without which interreligious dialogue is not possible” (Mitias 2021, p. 95). All religions, in fact, share the conviction of being rooted in a transcendent being who is greater than the universe and all human creatures, and consequently, beliefs and values that make the structure of all various faiths are believed to be derived from, inspired by or, in some ways, attributed to the transcendent (Mitias 2021, p. 109). This helps to understand that “God-centeredness is an ontological orientation”, and people of faith who are sensitive to spiritual realities easily grasp this dimension whenever and in whomever it is present. This was a fundamental characteristic of the process of Lubich’s sharing Paradise ’49 with a group of Hindus who were immediately able to capture this God-centeredness. The outcome was that, by the end of the reading of the text, in all people present, there was a deep sacred impression, as if everyone was walking on ‘sacred ground’15, irrespective of the religion he or she belonged to. The shared event was transformative more than informative.

3.3.2. Paradise ’49 as an Experience in the Tradition of the Church

Often, the dimension of God-Centeredness is expressed in contrast with that of Religion-Centeredness, as the two are considered exclusive one to the other. On the contrary, from the very beginning of her presentation, Lubich underlined that her experience was not only something personal. She was definitely the recipient of what she defined as ‘intellectual visions’, which she shared with Igino Giordani, whom she always considered a co-founder of the Focolare, and with her close companions, so that they might become a common patrimony. At the same time, it is crucial to understand that the meaning of these mystical moments has to be appreciated as part of the entire patrimony of the Church:

What was seen in 1949 has been confirmed by qualified experts in this field who agreed that everything is in conformity with the thought of the Church. Because Revelation was completed with the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the Church keeps all this patrimony of faith, she safeguards it. If other illuminations are given to certain people during the course of history, they are particular illuminations, but they must be in conformity with the Church’s patrimony of faith. They were studied by these experts of ours and they agree that they are in conformity with the thought of the Church. I would never have brought them out if I didn’t know that they were in fact in conformity with the Church.

(Lubich 2002b)

This perspective can be confirmed in some comments that were shared by Dr. Lingam Raja from Gandhigram University. The mystical experience of the Focolare foundress helped him to understand Christianity:

I never understood Christianity in that wholesome way, but through Chiara I could understand Christianity is nothing but love, that love generates and transforms and extends”.

(Raja 2002)

3.3.3. Absolute Clarity Regarding Christian Truths

Because of the presentation of her own mystical experience as being well interwined with the Christian tradition, Lubich—and this was one of the characteristics of her style of dialogue throughout her life—also shared some of the deepest Christian spiritual truths without ever avoiding words such as Trinity, Baptism, Eucharist, Redemption and the Catholic Church. Yet, she took the time to offer a respectful (towards the Hindu audience) introduction to these Christian realities and to the specific narrative of Paradise ’49. She explained words, concepts and theological aspects that might not have been easily understandable to people of other faiths. At the same time, she never gave the impression to her listeners that they were missing something, as if these truths were not part of their tradition. Her respect for the ‘religious other’ was full and sincere but always against the uncompromising background of her own faith and doctrine.

3.3.4. Faithful to the Official Narrative of the Text (of Paradise ’49)

In sharing her experience, Lubich remained faithful to the original narrative without ever watering it down for the sake of the Hindus present. Eventually, at several points, she added some comments, clarifications or even explanations, as the concepts might have sounded too Christian for Hindu listeners. In so doing, she showed a great trust in the Hindu audience to understand the real experience as it unfolded, without any manipulation on her part as the event’s protagonist.

Along with these four characteristics, it is important to underline some basic and fundamental dialogical attitudes that emerged during Lubich’s presentation. These elements can be considered as characteristic of the whole of the Italian Catholic leader’s dialogical experience.

3.3.5. Attitude of Deep Humility

An element that immediately came into evidence in the course of Lubich’s sharing was the deep and sincere sense of humility that Lubich showed towards her listeners. She offered her experience, never imposing it or trying to compare it with the mystical dimension that the Hindus presented, which drew from their tradition and saints. This attitude was evident even from Lubich’s body language and voice, which showed her clear intention of being a sister and a witness, rather than a master, to all those who were listening. Her language, too, was significant. For instance, in order to convey respect and acceptance for other traditions and respective believers, Lubich often underlined her presentation with appropriate expressions such as “for us Christians”. Consequently, she never gave the impression of being exclusive towards other faiths. On the contrary, though typically mystical and Christian, her language was inclusive at all times. These three words—“for us Christians”—were simultaneously a precious way to clarify her own identity, which she never compromised.

3.3.6. A Sense of Equality and Respect

The attitude of humility helped to establish a deep feeling of being ‘equals’ between Lubich and her listeners. A sense of superiority never transpired from the Catholic woman concerning her experience and religion. According to Mitias, Lubich might have easily conveyed “a show of sophistry, an attempt at delicate manipulation, or an occasion of rivalry and competition” (Mitias 2021, p. 30). On the contrary, in the speaker and in her interlocutors, there was an awareness of a divine presence in the ‘religious other’, and this helped to create an atmosphere of absolute equality among the people present in the hall. This also ensured the due respect for the religious dimension of the ‘other’. In fact, the feeling of being equal and of mutual respect helps to uphold the being of the other, which means to esteem and honor him/her for his/her own sake, for what he/she is and stands for. This also includes beliefs and values that constitute the other’s religious identity (see Mitias 2021, p. 30). Over the course of time, these existential attitudes helped to create a mutual understanding that has contributed to a deepening appreciation for the mystery, wisdom and divine dimension of the other’s religion.

3.3.7. Empathy—Being One with the ‘Other’

However, the main characteristic of Lubich’s style of proposing her mystical experience was probably ‘empathy’, an element that, at all stages, remained the distinguishing mark of her style of dialogue. Lubich succeeded in sharing her experience while constantly keeping in mind the sensitivity of the people who were in front of her. As we have already seen in the previous points, Lubich never compromised her religious beliefs. However, unless one tries to understand the beliefs and perspective of the religious ‘other’, there can be no respect, appreciation or dialogue. It remains a point of amazement to consider the way Lubich could not only “feel into the feeling of the other … but also think into the belief of the other” (Mitias 2021, p. 34). This, in fact, is what emerged during her sharing and in the course of her interactions with the Hindu interlocutors. For Lubich, interreligious dialogue was never meant to be about conversing with a ‘stranger’, but rather with a ‘human being’ and, even more, with a brother and a sister. In this effort, Lubich was never content with understanding what the other believed; she also sought to understand him/her in and through what he/she believes (Mitias 2021, p. 34). Silence and listening are the mediums for the implementation of this attitude of ‘empathy’, which Lubich expressed with a typical formula she herself coined: ‘to be one with the other’.

All these elements that surfaced during the first session when Paradise ’49 was presented to the Hindus can also be applied to the two following sessions, which took place later in 2003 and in 2004. During her second trip to India in January 2003, while in Mumbai, Lubich invited her Hindu friends, who had been in Rome the previous summer, for a full morning session in which she again read some passages taken from the text of Paradise ‘49. The passages touched upon Mary, the new heavens and new earths and on paradise, purgatory and hell. This time, the methodology was slightly different. In fact, after ending each section, Lubich encouraged reactions from the Hindu side. Answers were prompt, highlighting similarities that listeners noticed with Hindu sacred texts, with what Hindu saints have said or with personal experiences and impressions. The exchange was rich, and a few new elements emerged from Lubich’s attitude, which confirm the points described earlier. In fact, for the sake of a couple of people who had not heard the first text read in Rome, Lubich offered an extensive explanation to introduce her experience. This also constituted a precious recap for people who had already heard the introductory text the previous summer. This repetition reminds us of the Abba School methodology. In fact, during her meetings with Focolare scholars, Lubich used to invite repeated joint readings of Paradise ’49 texts. This allowed for a confrontation with the hermeneutical challenges posed by Lubich’s text itself and for a consideration of commonalities and differences with comparable mystical experiences in Church history (Tobler 2022, p. 5). Moreover, Lubich carefully listened to the Hindus while all of them spoke. She also commented in return, often clearly underlining aspects that were similar, as well as others that must be considered separately. In fact, Lubich never showed any discomfort in acknowledging differences between the Hindu perception of reality (even mystical reality) and the Christian one. Finally, she never refrained from distinguishing aspects that cannot be defined as the ‘same’, as they carry substantial differences.

3.4. “We Really Have Something to Learn”—A Lived Mysticism

Among the aspects just mentioned, great significance has to be recognized in the second one: Lubich’s carefully listening to the Hindus during their reactions to her narrative. Her attitude of silence and of great attention, which could be well defined as surrendering to the ‘other’, was an element of a passage of the text of Paradise ’49: “It is necessary to put ourselves before everyone in an attitude of learning, for we really have something to learn” (Tobler 2022, p. 12). In fact, as the Swiss Reformed theologian Stefan Tobler effectively outlines, Lubich gave a demonstration in which what really mattered was not talking about mysticism, but living it out. What made her narrative meaningful and understandable to people of other religions were certainly certain common images and symbols—such as light, sun and fire, which are rather common in all mystical texts of different religions—but, above all, it was the fact that it was “a mysticism that is fully experienced at the level of daily life” (Tobler 2022, p. 3). In summary, we could well state that Lubich, in offering her mystical experience to a group of Hindus, was not just proposing an attractive narrative but also showing the way in which to live it. Lubich’s narrative unfolded together with the effort of putting it into action. This has been a typical characteristic of Lubich’s being a Catholic Christian. She always had an existential understanding of faith (Mokrani 2006), and, likewise, her mysticism was well rooted in daily life. In this way, she was able to present it to Hindus, who were open to receive it, and somehow, she re-lived it along with them.

3.5. The Reactions of the Hindus: Lubich as a Jivan Mukti

The reaction of the Hindus who listened to Lubich’s narrative showed a clear confirmation that the Gifts of Light, offered by the Italian woman, were well received, appreciated and understood. Dr. Shantilal Somaiya16 declared: “at the highest spiritual levels there are not barriers of religion, the language of mystic is the same whatever religion it comes from. And here was a mystic sharing her experiences, her very great experiences” (Somaiya 2002). Interestingly, the Hindus who listened and participated in this experience reacted as they would have reacted in front of a Hindu mystic. Prof. Shubada Joshi of Mumbai University expressed it in a concise yet effective way: “She is like a saint, she’s a child of God, enveloped in divine love, and that’s why she is spreading it to everybody and we are fortunate that we are getting it from her” (Joshi 2002). Listeners, in fact, perceived in this Catholic woman a ‘fully realized’ person, i.e., one who has reached the fullness of realization and now helps other mortal beings to achieve the same. Such a person, in Hindu tradition, is commonly known as a jivan mukti. Though these words were never pronounced, we should not fail to recollect a final comment that Prof. Sureshchandra Uppadhyaya17, a noted scholar of Bharatya Vidhya Bhavan in Mumbai, made after listening to Lubich answer a question he had posed to her. The dialogue between Lubich and Uppadhyaya took place on 16 June 2002, two days before the exposition of Gifts of Light (Paradise ’49). Yet, bearing in mind that the event represented an academic and spiritual unicum, in which it might be difficult to separate sessions and different moments, we can very well quote the comment of this outstanding personality:

Your word is transparent, penetrating. In addition, I am still a man and I still have to pass through the gate of Jesus, to reach to my guru and to reach God. Moreover, I am glad that you have understood more of my silence than my words and I am very much grateful to you for this explanation. (Because you are in God. You are God).

(Uppadhyaya 2002)

The last words (highlighted in italics), which have been deleted from transcriptions and recordings, explain how Hindus perceived Lubich from their own perspective and sensitivity. To them, she was a jivan mukti, a creature that, according to Hindu tradition, has realized her divine nature and merged with the Absolute to reach moksha18, which ends the cycle of reincarnations. At the same time, she was still alive19 and open to share her ‘full realization’ with other men and women. This explains why Hindus—and, later, also other partners in the interfaith commitment—never perceived any hint of proselytization in this Catholic woman, who, in reality, lived a process of the proclamation of the Good News in the first person. In fact, in the days of the symposium, all the major Christian truths were announced and explained. These were at the center of the Hindus’ desire to grasp the real meaning of Lubich’s mystical experience. Therefore, Lubich succeeded in appearing to be a living example of one of the highest stages in life, according to Hindu sensitivity, while proclaiming her deepest beliefs without any pressure or imposition. This is one of the aspects of Lubich’s thought and experience that is deserving of further study in order to better understand how proclamation and dialogue are truly expressions of the same reality, and mysticism can be a way to harmonize them. We can find a clear explanation of this difficult balance between dialogue and mission in the following consideration of the Italian theologian Piero Coda, who was one of Lubich’s closest collaborators in studying Paradise ’49 at the Abba School:

Chiara recognizes that her mission is to communicate the Light she has received, not just to those living the experience of Paradise with her …, but to everyone. It is a matter of … inserting God’s life into relationships among human beings in our common home wherever and however these relationships are manifested. It is prolonging the Incarnation of Jesus, the Word of the Father who is love … extending into the world through the Church and the Holy Spirit’s universal action. From this comes the joys pressing urgency to communicate the Light—forming and shaping new life on an anthropological, social, and cultural [and religious] level.

(Coda 2020, p. 26)

4. The Holy Spirit and the Role of Women in Dialogue

In line with what we have just mentioned, the case we have presented in this paper helps us to understand what the Italian theologian Ancilli affirms when he says that, through mystical reality, the Church goes beyond the borders of the visible Church. Christ’s spirit, as the Second Vatican Council defined it, mysteriously but effectively works with all men and women (see Ancilli 1990). Lubich’s dialogical experience with the Hindus seems to be evidence of this mysterious work of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the experience of Chiara Lubich sharing her Christian mysticism with people of another religion—in this case, Hindus20—raises the question of the role that women might play in interreligious dialogue. In fact, it is enough to take part in interfaith events to realize that the overwhelming majority of representatives of different religions are men, and this makes the experience of interreligious dialogue a largely androcentric one (Fletcher 2002, p. 171). On the contrary, those who have experienced women’s presence in interreligious circles are well aware of the unique contribution women can offer:

… when women are introduced as subjects to interreligious dialogue, a more textured and challenging realization is in store. As women’s voices and experiences are incorporated in interreligious dialogue, we begin to see a more dynamic construction of the ‘religions’ …

(Fletcher 2002, p. 170)

From the very beginning, the protagonists of the dialogue between Lubich (and the Focolare Movement) and representatives of different Hindu streams were mostly women21. They were the real driving force behind the whole process, even in the following years, until present day. Those who have engaged in interreligious dialogues, men and women alike, have witnessed the difference that women’s contributions have made, when compared with other dialogical events with a clear androcentric slant. Women, in fact, contribute to bringing the dynamics of religions into greater evidence in their typical multiplicity, which can never be ignored (Fletcher 2002, p. 174). They find alternatives to the dialogue carried out only by men. For instance, according to Helene Egnell, a distinctive mark of women’s contribution is the integration of “traditional and personal experiences”. In fact—and we have seen it in Chiara Lubich—a precious contribution given by women is the existential aspect of faith. They emphasize, much more than men do, “faith as lived rather than as expressed in scriptures and doctrine” (Egnell 2007, p. 161). Secondly, we have to highlight—and this reconnects us with our present topic—women’s special sensitivity towards the stimulation and prompting by the Holy Spirit. In this connection, Edith Stein affirms that the unique value women carry with them lies in a special receptivity to God’s action in the human soul. This comes to a full development only if and when the creature surrenders to God’s action with trust and without opposition (Stein 2010, p. 11). The Spirit (or divine Rûah) appears to be symbolically related to the women’s world. In fact, He is almost personified in the name of the Paraclitus, who carries out actions related to roles that are tradionally assigned to women: to console, to defend, to care, to heal, etc. Above all, women’s religious connection appears to be deeply linked with witnessing, something that is related to women in the forth Gospel in the stories of the samaritan, Martha and Mary in Bethany and Mary Magdaleine. A further confirmation of this aspect may come from scriptural basis. In fact, John’s Gospel clearly shows the Spirit’s fundamental traits when looking towards women (Mariani and Navarro Puerto 2022, p. 193). If, on the one hand, theology has just marginally explored the Spirit’s gifts with which other religions and cultures are endowed, on the other hand, we have to acknowledge that there are ‘charismatic prophets’ who are capable of opening new avenues on this path. Lubich was one such pioneer, and she was able to detect the same dimension in other people—in this case, women—with whom she succeeded in establishing an immediate, friendly spiritual relationship. Rightly, the noted female theologian Cettina Militello speaks of a “prophetic charism” (Militello 2020, p. 69) that women can express. In fact, Lubich’s decision to share her most intimate moments of life with God with people she hardly knew—she had met some of them only once—and, above all, those from another culture and religion, might have posed a big risk. It might have been a hazard or a sort of spiritual miscalculation. On the contrary, it has to be acknowledged that this event demonstrated how women can prophesyze precisely because they are women. Lubich’s decision was evidence of what Militello states when she affirms that women are capable of establishing proximity with the Holy Spirit and, consequently, of being channels of the non-mediated immediacy typical of the Third Person of the Trinity (Militello 2020, pp. 73–74). Furthermore, we should never forget or downplay the fact that prophecy is a gift of the Spirit, and prophecy itself appears to be trans-cultural and trans-religious. Lubich is an example of how a prophet can unfold and set the present free from dogmatic and exclusive attitudes, opening the human community—not only the followers of one’s own religion—to understanding the future by grasping the so-called ‘signs of the times’, which remain cryptic to the others (Militello 2020, p. 71).

5. Conclusions

At the end of this first attempt to analyze Chiara Lubich’s initiative in sharing her mystical experience with people of another religious tradition—in this case, Hindus—it must be acknowledged that this is only a first humble step to delve into a fascinating example of interreligious dialogue of our times. It is important to keep in consideration that we are not dealing with an isolated experience. Lubich, in her own original way, joined several other protagonists of mystical Hindu–Christian dialogues. A few decades before her, three European men (Abbé Mochanin, Henry Le Saux, who took up the Hindu name Abhisktananda, and Bede Griffith) entered into a unique experience. As they all came from a very traditional Catholic background, they experienced the spiritual and intellectual pain and spiritual torment of approaching and immersing themselves in the Vedanta reality. They went through an excruciating experience that can be expressed with the concept of metanoia (Panikkar 2002, pp. 15–16). Lubich’s approach was different due to the fact that her spiritual experience was always deeply communitarian. Even the mystical dimension that Lubich experienced when she was barely 29 years old was shared with her spiritual companions, who decided to walk along the same spiritual path. The ‘metanoia’ she went through were the long moments of spiritual darkness Lubich experienced at diffent phases of her life, with a climax in the last four years before her death. But this is not the topic of our study.22 In all probability, we have to read this dialogical experience in the context of the challenges that ‘religious pluralism’ poses to the world today from a geopolitical perspective and to Christianity from a theological viewpoint. In this framework, we cannot deny that the foundress of the Focolare offers a positive example of how to attempt to face these complex aspects typical of our times. Lubich herself, towards the end of her life, admitted this:

Our work with many brothers and sisters of the major religions and fellowship we experience with them has convinced us that the idea of religious pluralism can shed its connotation of division and conflict. It can emerge to represent for millions of men and women, the challenge of recomposing the unity of the human family, so that the Holy Spirit may in some way be present and active in all religions, not only in the individual members but also in the inner workings of each religious tradition.

(Lubich 2003)

The dialogical experience we have attempted to analyze offers a credible and sustainable example of the way in which pluralism has to be approached, keeping in mind, with all seriousness and with great respect, all the differences among religions at different levels. The way that we can communicate with the ‘religious other’ is not through eliminating differences. On the contrary, it is necessary to acknowledge and appreciate these differences. Only in this way will followers of a certain religious tradition perceive the respect they deserve and, at the same time, fully experience the right of their own identity. In fact, interreligious dialogue is not an experience in which identity and alterity disappear into something undefined. A dialogical attitude helps to foster a positive relationship among followers of different religions, who, beyond their differences and similarities, may reach a human and divine space in which they can meet and communicate, knowing one another, appreciating their differences, rejoicing in their analogies and, in the end, mysteriously but concretely, experiencing God’s presence. It is from this perspective that the specificity of the present Hindu–Christian dialogue can be fully grasped and valued. This is an experience of being ‘together’, as ‘pilgrims of the Absolute’, as recent popes—especially Benedict XVI and Pope Francis—love to define interfaith dialogue.

The second aspect that we have focused on in our analysis is Lubich’s initiative of sharing her mystical experience and the narrative and methodology she used. Here, we can find the prophetic intuition of the Italian woman who seemed to have combined the prophecies of two great men of last century in this event: André Malraux and Karl Rahner. The French scholar was convinced that either the 21st century will be mystical or it will not be, and the German theologian specified that tomorrow, the Christian will either be a mystic, or he or she will not be. Lubich never felt the mystical experience of Paradise ’49 to be her own possession. She shared it freely with people outside of the Catholic Church. She dealt with the mystical dimension of her experience and life, well aware that this was the locus where man/woman meet with the Absolute and, in this way, they celebrate an encounter that is radically transformative23. In addition, there are no ethnic, cultural or religious barriers to this experience. Rather, it becomes the foundation for building that ‘culture of encounter’ or ‘culture of dialogue’ that Pope Francis insists upon today.

In pursuing further studies on this experience, we have to be well aware that mysticism remains a path towards the unknown and towards nothingness. The unknowing is common to all religious traditions and represents, in a mysterious way, “the meeting place for interfaith dialogue” (Waajiman 2008, p. 231). Nevertheless, in order to reach this place, the people involved are called to move “beyond the narrowness and rigidity of religious dogmatism, beyond the dangerous claims of privileged truth” (Waajiman 2008, p. 231).

Mysticism … is the “place” where true dialogue and the meeting of different religious traditions, in an atmosphere of “reciprocal transparency” can occur. Such a creative rapprochement will facilitate and open dialogue in which the different mystical traditions can acknowledge their complementarity and articulate plurality. As such, dogmatic rigidity and colonial intellectualism will be replaced by a deep humility in the face of the infinite mystery and “unknowingness” of the Ultimate.

(Kourie 2008)

Finally, it is worth mentioning that, in the years following the events we have described and upon which we commented, there were two major developments in the experience of interreligious dialogue around Lubich’s mystical experience. In fact, in the last fifteen years, the video recordings of the presentation of Paradise ’49 made by Lubich herself were shown to other groups of people of different religious traditions: Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Baha’i. Reactions were often, if not always, very similar, and the contact with this mystical dimension of Lubich’s charism has truly created a holy ground with people of different faith traditions as a locus from which to build a deeply spiritual and existential dialogue. A second specific and more focused development has been the experience of dialogue among theologians, Christian and Muslims. For the last ten years, a group of Catholic theologians mainly from the German-speaking world and colleagues from the Muslim world (mostly Sunnis, but with a Shia’ presence as well) have met regularly to explore the same text in order to find new avenues for a constructive theological interfaith dialogue. As we can see, the courageous decision made by a Catholic woman at the beginning of the new millennium continues to be the spark for a constructive encounter among people of different religious beliefs today.