Levinas’s work consists of two types of writing: one confessional and Jewish and one professional and philosophical. In this article, I argue that the two styles of writing are intimately interconnected. Philosophy is enriched by the inclusion of something that was forgotten and repressed within the limits of an immanent, self-enclosed method of thinking; in conflating the two approaches, Levinas in some manner Judaizes philosophy. His “love of wisdom” is inspired by the Biblical and Talmudic “wisdom of love,” a concept which should not be excluded from the wisdom that is strived for in philosophy. At the same time, Levinas opens up dialogical Jewish thought to its other: to logical Greek thinking. Put succinctly and in a more colorful, biblical metaphor: he welcomes Shem into the tents of Yafet, but also invites Yafet...

This article describes Gandhi’s view on Judaism and Zionism and places it in the framework of an interreligious theology. In such a theology, the notion of “trans-difference” appreciates the differences between cultures and religions with the aim of building bridges between them. It is argued that Gandhi’s understanding of Judaism was limited, mainly because he looked at Judaism through Christian lenses. He reduced Judaism to a religion without considering its peoplehood dimension. This reduction, together with his political endeavors in favor of the Hindu–Muslim unity and with his advice of satyagraha to the Jews in the 1930s determined his view on Zionism. Notwithstanding Gandhi’s problematic views on Judaism and Zionism, his satyagraha opens a wide-open window to possibilities and challenges in the Near East. In the spirit of an interreligious theology, bridges are built between Gandhi’s satyagraha and Jewish transformational dialogical thinking.

In this article, I introduce and develop a logic of dialogue and reciprocity as distinguished from a logic of reflection. I argue that interreligious dialogue is not only desirable, but logically necessary for two reasons: one, the logic of dialogue precedes the logic of reflection and, two, the intersubjective dialogue is a precondition for the dialogue with the Ultimate Reality. I proceed in three stages. First, I problematize the terms identity and belonging and expound on the challenge of dialogue. Second, I reflect upon the nature of interreligious dialogue and present my dialogical theology together with its crucial notion of “trans-difference”. Third, I refer to the dialogical philosophies of Buber, Fischer and Gandhi, whose thoughts contribute to a dialogical theology.

A virtual encounter between Buber and Gandhi articulates where they differ and where they touch common ground. They developed a transformative thinking that opened up the individual and collective ego to others. Only recently have scholars paid full attention to Buber’s theo-political thinking. Gandhi’s article “The Jews” made his way of thinking irrelevant for many Zionists over the decades. The relative neglect of Buber’s political thought and of Gandhi’s contribution to conflict resolution in Israel/Palestine explains why studies systematically comparing Buber’s politico-religious thinking with that of Gandhi are rare. The present article wants to fill this gap. Gandhi and Buber’s religiosity impacted upon spiritual, social, and political life. Their transformational perspectives could shed new light on how to deal with violent conflict situations.

This article explores how Gandhi and Heschel developed a liberation theology that was rooted in their religious praxis, which implied an active, non-violent struggle for the rights of the oppressed. A first section discusses what separates the two spiritual giants. A second section describes the affinities between them. The third, main section describes how they formulated a non-violent liberation theology that aims at the liberation of all.

The purpose of this study is to describe Thich Nhat Hanh’s naturalism and nondualism and to situate his views in a “trans-different” perspective. I ask whether his thoughts are compatible with other worldviews that work with the notion of justice. I first describe Nhat Hanh’s attitude towards nature. I then demonstrate how his non-separation from nature paves the way for an interconnectedness with all and how his nonduality leads him to a universal belonging. Finally, juxtaposing Nhat Hanh’s nondualism and a justice-oriented approach, I argue that in a “trans-different” perspective different approaches to suffering and peace may learn from each other and complement each other.