Comp. by: 201508 Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 23 Title Name: Landis Date:1/5/20 Time:13:58:08 Page Number: 658 23 Dialogue and Culture: Reflections on the Parameters of Cultural Dialogue Sthaneshwar Timalsina Culture is flux. All cultures are somewhat per- meable and hold internal tension. Dialogue between East and the West, or between Hindu and Buddhist cultures cannot a priori assume diametrically opposed cultural agents. Terms such as “inter-faith dialogue,”“cultural dis- course,” “Hindu-Christian dialogue” were familiarized in recent decades. Here I outline parameters for such conversations derived from cultural dialogue in religious and philo- sophical sources of classical and medieval India. My approach will be general. Historical examples are excavated to show how diametric- ally opposing parties are constituted in the pro- cess of dialogue itself and not located within static cultural subjects that are frozen in time. Can philosophical discourse mirror collect- ive social and cultural dialogue? One problem is that conclusions derived from philosophical observation can have minimal impact on socio-political history. Since texts are products of history and reflect society of that time, text- ual discourse, I argue, helps shape social dia- logue. The effects of cultural exchange: fusion, clash, appropriation, subordination, negation, and annihilation are identified in textual history by reading inter-textually across time, not as isolated or frozen units. This requires a bird’s- eye-view, rather than a microanalysis of specific texts and events. Whilst reading a chapter or text for philological insight has its own merits, this approach limits recognition of the cultural flux and textual dynamism portrayed by the shifting horizons of writers inside traditions. A single text may obscure transition or fusion of traditions. A lineage might demonstrate deviation from earlier premises if we examine historically contextual forces and factors. Reading textual battles are enlightening in many regards. We can either spill the meta- phoric ink or human blood. Maintaining dif- ference is inherent to our being in the world and it is only a matter of choice over how we intend to institutionalize our difference. I, for one, prefer to waste virtual ink than real blood. My observations in this paper confront the position that historical parameters are red. When our ink fails or when philosophers undergo collective amnesia, our inherent dif- ference becomes the very weapon to annihilate us. As long as philosophers live, our minds sustain our difference. And it is naïve to pre- sume that all differences be absolved. Both philosophical hegemony and imperial con- quest fail to recognize the inherent human drive to both community and difference and are therefore destined to eventually fail. Ideological battles are not less violent and can fuel wars. Metaphors include Plato’s Soph- ist or Republic on philosophical wrestling. Philosophers apparently “hunt” for a defin- ition, weigh the “force” of the definition, and this search can be compared to a battle between gods and giants. In many regards, cultural dialogue can be compared to a land dispute. There is a constant effort to assert territory to take over the other’s property, to breach the barriers, to conquer a particular region, to appropriate the other’s position, to plant one’s ideas in another’s field, and so on. There are not just victories and defeats, there are also retreats and logical ambush, and