Fire & Light.
Last year, I organized several unique meetings between a Tibetan lama and a Benedictine abbot, which resulted in a two-part book on the spiritual path in Buddhism and Christianity.1 This warm and enriching exchange allowed me to form a more precise opinion on what brings these two great spiritual paths together and separates them. The prejudices and caricatured visions present in many minds tend to maintain the dominant idea of a radical difference between these two traditions. There are indeed, and we will return to this, certain profound divergences. But, as this dialogue has shown, the points of agreement are much more numerous than is commonly thought. I will identify five major poles of convergence. The first concerns the existential situation of man: on both sides, this life is considered decisive, with a major stake: that of salvation or liberation to be obtained and for which man is invited to devote significant efforts. Death is also considered a crucial moment for which man must prepare, a passage to another mode of existence, which is conditioned by the actions performed in this life. Even if certain divergences arise regarding the different modes of existence in this future life, we find in both traditions the notions of blissful states and unhappy states, with the possibility of ultimately accessing a state of supreme beatitude beyond all representation and all words (nirvana or beatific vision).
The second pole of convergence, the most important, concerns the spiritual path and more precisely the inner dispositions necessary for man to achieve this salvation or this liberation. The Monk and the Lama thus agree on the need to free the mind from the many agitations and distractions to create a true "inner space". On the usefulness of the practice of meditation to create this inner silence and the conditions for taking a step back, distancing ourselves from all that disturbs us. On the need to open one's heart to the Absolute, to develop a state of abandonment, of trust, of letting go. On the decisive nature of altruistic intention in all spiritual practice, this loving motivation which aims to enlarge one's heart to the dimensions of the universe, to refuse to be happy without others, to put, ultimately, love and compassion as the source and supreme goal of all spiritual activity. In this perspective, pride, arrogance, withdrawal into oneself to the detriment of others, are perceived on both sides as the main obstacles to spiritual realization. On the other hand, there is strong emphasis on the need for a "reconnection" with a higher principle capable of helping man to grow and surpass himself. This notion of spiritual influence, of grace, is at the heart of Christianity as well as of Buddhism of the Great Vehicle. This considerably reduces the gap between a conception of Christianity where salvation would depend solely on grace and a limited conception of Buddhism, where the spiritual path would rely solely on the efforts of man, without any mediation or appeal to external spiritual support. The gap obviously remains on the ultimate origin of grace: the gift of divine life from the Creator on the one hand, the positive influence of "awakened" beings and a process of identification with their qualities, on the other. The discourse held by the Monk and the Lama on what the Christian tradition calls "the passions" and Buddhism "the emotions" is also very similar. The central idea is not to repress, not to repress these passions or emotions, but to recognize them, to identify them and to carry out spiritual work that allows them to be transformed (which is in line with the Freudian concept of sublimation). Finally, we find a very similar conception of happiness, of how it should be sought without constituting an absolute in this life, as well as of suffering, which should never be sought for itself, but which, experienced in a certain way – here the conceptions may diverge strongly – can serve as a springboard for spiritual progress.
Third pole of convergence: the ethical requirement. Buddhism and Christianity are two ethical religions that propose numerous rules for human action. The ten negative and positive acts of Buddhism echo the ten biblical commandments, and both sides strongly insist on the need to respect life, which leads to an unequivocal condemnation of abortion as a serious act. The discourse on values is very similar and is polarized – with different metaphysical backgrounds – on the central idea of respect and love for one's neighbor.
Fourth pole of convergence, the importance of tradition. Both speakers insist on the fact that a spiritual quest must be rooted in a tradition. The central idea is both that of an apprenticeship with a master or within a spiritual school (such as a monastic order) and that of a community – the sangha or the Church – within which man progresses more beneficially than if he remains isolated. They recall the importance of the internal coherence of a religion and the danger of cherry-picking or "tinkering" between several systems.
Finally, the fifth pole of convergence is man's relationship to the Absolute. The conceptions of the Absolute are different – and we will come to this immediately – but I was struck by the astonishing similarities that exist in the way in which Buddhists of the Great Vehicles and Christians consider that man is a participant, by his very nature, in this Absolute and then tends through his approach and through grace to "realize" or "attain" it. Lama Jigmé explains that every man possesses "the nature of the Buddha" and that his spiritual efforts tend to fully realize, by dispelling the veils of ignorance, his true nature. Dom Robert recalls that all men are "participants of the divine nature" and that the ultimate goal of the Christian spiritual path is also to dispel all the veils and obstacles that prevent man from fully living this divine life. In a phenomenological look at the path that leads man to realize or attain this Absolute, we can also underline the astonishing kinship between the three theological virtues of faith, hope and charity and the three "pillars" of the Tibetan path of which Lama Jigmé speaks. Just as the Christian is inhabited by faith in God, which leads him to believe not only in His existence, but also to recognize in Him certain qualities: love, omnipotence, omniscience, etc., the Buddhist is inhabited by "deupa," which the Lama defines as a "solid faith" that allows him to recognize the qualities of the Buddha and of Enlightenment. Just as the Christian develops the virtue of hope, which makes him hope to participate fully one day in the divine life and supports him throughout the difficulties of the spiritual path, the Tibetan Buddhist develops "meugu," a strong aspiration to achieve Enlightenment. Just as the Christian says he is "carried" by divine love and tends toward the full realization of this love, the Tibetan Buddhist affirms that he relies on "djampa-nyindjé," love and compassion, to develop all the other spiritual qualities and considers compassion as the essential quality of Enlightenment.
All these points of agreement or similarities, and one could mention others, should not, however, conceal some profound divergences that appear very clearly during this dialogue.
The first of these obviously concerns the very understanding of the Absolute. Christians, following the Jews, believe in a personal and creator God. The Absolute of the Buddhists is much more impersonal and remains totally foreign to this notion of creation. Certainly, as the two interlocutors point out, Buddhism does not explicitly deny the existence of a creator God and one can undoubtedly speak of Buddhism as an apophatic path (that is to say, one that remains silent on this subject). It remains nonetheless that the biblical notion of a source, creator God, who exists independently of his creation, is foreign to Buddhism. This results in a very different existential way of connecting with the Absolute: on the one hand, Christian prayer, which is experienced as a dialogue between the creature and the creator, and on the other, Buddhist meditation, which allows for work on the human spirit without any relationship with the "Other," even if, as has just been mentioned, the notion of "relaying" with "awakened beings" somehow compensates for this absence of otherness.
The definition that both sides give of man stems directly from this understanding of the Absolute. While Buddhism conceives of man as the product of a natural evolutionism whose primary origins remain rather vague, Christianity considers him as a divine creature, the only one to possess a spirit or a spiritual soul allowing him to return to his creator.
On the question of evil and its origin, the situation is almost the opposite. While Buddhism provides a logical, abundantly developed causal explanation—the universal law of karma—Christians remain almost silent on the question and refer, through the myth of original sin, to the mystery of the creative act in the face of human freedom.
On the question of the afterlife, even if we have been able to note some important points of convergence, a fundamental point of disagreement remains. Christians strongly affirm that each man lives only once and that he is then judged and rewarded according to his merits. The supreme reward is, moreover, total participation in divine life: the beatific vision or Eternal Life. Buddhists, for their part, are convinced of the existence of many lives—even if the question of what transmigrates from one life to another remains very complex and strongly debated even within the different branches of Buddhism—and believe that man can only achieve Enlightenment at the end of an extremely long journey.
This dialogue has finally highlighted two other fundamental differences. Looking back at history, we can see that Buddhism has placed a strong emphasis on self-improvement and self-transformation, while Christianity, without neglecting this dimension (at least until recently), has also developed numerous charitable and educational works, responding to an imperative to transform the world. The question, which is very difficult to answer, is to what extent this difference results solely from different spatial and historical conditioning, or whether it also stems from metaphysical divergences between the two religions. In other words, is the conception of an Absolute as a personal and creative God, who is incarnated in the person of Christ to manifest his love for all men, the founding source of a profound impulse to transform the world, which will not only lead thousands of individuals to devote their lives to the poorest or to found all sorts of charitable institutions, but also engender the notions – today secularized – of social justice and human rights? Personally, I would answer in the affirmative.
The last major divergence concerns the way in which Buddhism and Christianity relate to other religions and the proselytism that results from this. The Lama insists that each religion or spiritual path of humanity is equal in dignity—even if the means diverge—each one being able to lead men to Enlightenment. Conversely, the Monk has constantly recalled the Catholic position, which posits the preeminence of Christianity over other religions, even if the Church recognizes fragments or seeds of truth elsewhere. While the tone and forms have evolved, the Church's current position with regard to religions in general and Buddhism in particular remains fundamentally the same as that of Pope Clement XII, who wrote to the Dalai Lama in 1738: "We have the motivated hope that, through the mercy of the infinite God, you will come to see clearly that only the practice of the doctrine of the Gospel, to which your religion closely resembles, can lead to the happiness of an eternal life."
Here, in fact, we touch on the crucial question of the status of truth. For while both Buddhism and Christianity strongly insist on the need to "seek the truth," as a necessary discernment between what is true and what is false, Christians feel they are the custodians of the ultimate truth. They give the truth of their message an absolute, trans-historical, and immutable character. Conversely, Buddhists do not claim to be the custodians of a divine truth and establish a subtle distinction between absolute truth and relative truth. They admit that if absolute truth does exist, it is not accessible in concepts or words. In other words, as long as we have not attained Enlightenment, as long as we are limited by our mental categories, we can only profess relative truths – a conception which echoes that of Kant and which today appears as one of the major postulates of modernity. Such a conception, which paradoxically also lays the foundation for the success of Buddhism in the West, necessarily leads to a much more peaceful missionary attitude and ultimately to a certain pluralist understanding of religions which is distinct from the exclusivist or inclusivist understanding of Christianity. Beyond a polite discourse, this is the reason why the Dalai Lama constantly tells Westerners that they should not seek to change their religion and convert to Buddhism. Conversely, the Catholic is considered to believe that the Church is the repository of the ultimate universal truth, revealed by Jesus Christ, and that it must, as Christ committed it to do, transmit this truth to all men. This is the reason why the Pope holds the exact opposite view of the Dalai Lama and strongly encourages missions to Buddhist and other lands.
This book of dialogue between a Tibetan lama and a monk deeply faithful to the Catholic magisterium reflects this profound difference, which nevertheless in no way calls into question the usefulness and fruitfulness of an inter-religious exchange that also allows religions to confront the way in which they conceive of themselves and how they relate to each other. From this confrontation springs a useful clarification. It is then up to each person to situate themselves in relation to this divergence, which is perhaps the most radical of all.