Fire & Light.
Last year, I organized several unique meetings between a Tibetan lama and a Benedictine abbot, which resulted in a book written in collaboration on the spiritual path in Buddhism and Christianity.1 This warm and enriching exchange allowed me to form a more precise opinion on what unites and separates these two great spiritual paths. Prejudices and caricatured views, prevalent in many minds, tend to perpetuate the dominant idea of a radical difference between these two traditions. Indeed, and we will return to this point, some profound divergences exist. But, as this dialogue has shown, the points of agreement are far more numerous than commonly believed. I will highlight five major areas of convergence. The first concerns the existential situation of humankind: both consider this life to be decisive, with a major stake: that of salvation or liberation to be attained, and to which humankind is called upon to dedicate significant effort. Death is also considered a crucial moment, one for which humankind must prepare, a passage to another mode of existence, which is conditioned by the actions taken in this life. Even though some differences exist regarding the various modes of existence in this afterlife, both traditions share the notions of blissful and unhappy states, with the possibility of ultimately attaining a state of supreme beatitude beyond all representation and words (nirvana or the beatific vision).
The second and most important point of convergence concerns the spiritual path and, more specifically, the inner dispositions necessary for one to achieve this salvation or liberation. The Monk and the Lama agree on the necessity of freeing the mind from numerous agitations and distractions to create a true "inner space." They also agree on the usefulness of meditation practice in creating this inner silence and the conditions for gaining perspective, for distancing oneself from all that disturbs us. On the necessity of opening one's heart to the Absolute, of cultivating a state of surrender, trust, and letting go. On the decisive nature of altruistic intention in all spiritual practice, this loving motivation that aims to expand one's heart to the dimensions of the universe, to refuse to be happy without others, and ultimately to place love and compassion as the source and supreme goal of all spiritual activity. From this perspective, pride, self-sufficiency, and self-absorption at the expense of others are perceived by both sides as the main obstacles to spiritual realization. Conversely, there is strong emphasis on the necessity of a "reconnection" with a higher principle capable of helping humanity grow and transcend itself. This notion of spiritual influence, of grace, is indeed at the heart of both Christianity and Mahayana Buddhism. This considerably reduces the gap between a conception of Christianity where salvation depends solely on grace and a limited conception of Buddhism, where the spiritual path relies solely on human effort, without any mediation or appeal to external spiritual support. The difference obviously remains regarding the ultimate source of grace: the gift of divine life from the Creator on the one hand, and the positive influence of "enlightened" beings and a process of identification with their qualities on the other. The discourse held by the Monk and the Lama on what Christian tradition calls "passions" and Buddhism "emotions" is also very similar. The central idea is not to repress or suppress these passions or emotions, but to acknowledge them, identify them, and undertake spiritual work that allows them to be transformed (which aligns with the Freudian concept of sublimation). Finally, we find a very similar conception of happiness, of how it should be sought without becoming an absolute in this life, as well as of suffering, which should never be sought for its own sake, but which, experienced in a certain way—here conceptions may diverge sharply—can serve as a springboard for spiritual progress.
A third point of convergence is the ethical imperative. Buddhism and Christianity are two ethical religions that offer numerous rules for human action. The ten negative and positive acts of Buddhism echo the Ten Commandments of the Bible, and both strongly emphasize the necessity of respecting life, leading to an unequivocal condemnation of abortion as a grave act. The discourse on values is very similar and focuses—with different metaphysical underpinnings—on the central idea of respect and love for one's neighbor.
A fourth point of convergence is the importance of tradition. Both interlocutors insist that a spiritual quest must be rooted in a tradition. The central idea is both that of learning from a master or within a spiritual school (such as a monastic order) and that of a community—the sangha or the Church—within which one progresses more beneficially than if one remains isolated. They emphasize the importance of the internal coherence of a religion and the danger of cherry-picking or "tinkering" between several systems.
Finally, the fifth point of convergence is the relationship between humanity and the Absolute. Conceptions of the Absolute differ—and we will come to this shortly—but I was struck by the astonishing similarities in the way Mahayana Buddhists and Christians consider that humanity, by its very nature, participates in this Absolute and then strives, through its actions and grace, to "realize" or "attain" it. Lama Jigmé explains that every person possesses "Buddha-nature" and that their spiritual efforts aim to fully realize their true nature by dispelling the veils of ignorance. Dom Robert, for his part, reminds us that all people are "participants in the divine nature" and that the ultimate goal of the Christian spiritual path is also to dispel all the veils and obstacles that prevent humanity from fully living this divine life. From a phenomenological perspective on the path that leads humanity to realize or attain this Absolute, we can further highlight the striking similarity between the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity and the three "pillars" of the Tibetan path described by Lama Jigmé. Just as Christians are filled with faith in God, which leads them to believe not only in His existence but also to recognize in Him certain qualities such as love, omnipotence, and omniscience, Buddhists are filled with "deupa," which the Lama defines as a "firm faith" that allows them to recognize the qualities of the Buddha and of Enlightenment. Just as Christians cultivate the virtue of hope, which allows them to hope for one day to fully participate in divine life and sustains them throughout the difficulties of the spiritual path, Tibetan Buddhists cultivate "meugu," a strong aspiration to attain Enlightenment. Finally, just as Christians say they are "carried" by divine love and strive for the full realization of this love, Tibetan Buddhists affirm that they rely on "djampa-nyindje," love and compassion, to develop all other spiritual qualities and consider compassion to be the essential quality of Enlightenment.
All these points of agreement or similarities, and others could be mentioned, should not, however, obscure some profound divergences that become very clear 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 Buddhist Absolute is much more impersonal and remains entirely foreign to this notion of creation. Certainly, as both 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). Nevertheless, the biblical notion of a source God, a creator, who exists independently of his creation, is foreign to Buddhism. This leads to 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; on the other, Buddhist meditation, which allows for work on the human mind without any relationship with the "Other," even if, as we have just mentioned, the notion of "connection" with "enlightened beings" somewhat compensates for this absence of otherness.
The definition that each gives of humankind stems directly from this understanding of the Absolute. While Buddhism conceives of humankind as the product of natural evolution whose earliest origins remain rather vague, Christianity considers it a divine creature, the only one to possess a spirit or a spiritual soul enabling it to return to its creator.
On the question of evil and its origin, the situation is almost reversed. While Buddhism offers a logical, extensively developed causal explanation—the universal law of karma—Christians remain almost silent on the matter and, through the myth of original sin, refer to the mystery of the creative act in the face of human freedom.
On the question of the afterlife, even though some important points of convergence have been noted, a fundamental point of disagreement remains. Christians strongly affirm that each person lives only once and is then judged and rewarded according to their merits. The supreme reward, moreover, is total participation in divine life: the beatific vision or eternal life. Buddhists, for their part, are convinced of the existence of multiple lives—even if the question of what transmigrates from one life to another remains very complex and hotly debated even within the different schools of Buddhism—and believe that a person can only attain Enlightenment at the end of an extremely long journey.
Finally, this dialogue has highlighted two other fundamental differences. Historically, Buddhism has strongly emphasized self-work 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 stems solely from different spatial and historical circumstances, or whether it also arises from metaphysical divergences between the two religions. In other words, is the concept of an Absolute as a personal and creative God, who is incarnated in the person of Christ to manifest his love for all humankind, the foundational source of a profound impulse to transform the world, which not only led thousands of individuals to dedicate their lives to the poorest or to found all kinds of charitable institutions, but also gave rise to the notions—now secularized—of social justice and human rights? Personally, I would answer in the affirmative.
The last major point of divergence concerns how Buddhism and Christianity position themselves in relation to other religions and the proselytizing that stems from this. The Lama insists that every religion or spiritual path of humanity is equal in dignity—even if the means differ—each capable of leading people to Enlightenment. Conversely, the Monk has constantly reiterated the Catholic position, which establishes 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 regarding 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 eternal life.”
This touches upon the crucial question of the status of truth. For while both Buddhism and Christianity strongly emphasize the need to “seek the truth,” as a necessary discernment between what is true and what is false, Christians consider themselves the custodians of ultimate truth. They attribute to the truth of their message an absolute, transhistorical, and immutable character. Conversely, Buddhists do not claim to be the custodians of divine truth and establish a subtle distinction between absolute and relative truth. They acknowledge that while absolute truth certainly exists, it is not accessible through concepts or words. In other words, until we attain Enlightenment, until we are limited by our mental categories, we can only profess relative truths—a conception that echoes Kant's and which appears today as one of the major tenets of modernity. Such a conception, which also paradoxically paves the way for Buddhism's success in the West, necessarily leads to a much more peaceful missionary approach and ultimately to a certain pluralistic understanding of religions that differs from the exclusivist or inclusivist understanding of Christianity. Beyond mere politeness, this is why the Dalai Lama constantly tells Westerners that they should not seek to change religions and convert to Buddhism. Conversely, Catholics believe that the Church is the custodian of ultimate universal truth, revealed by Jesus Christ, and that it has a duty, as Christ commanded, to transmit this truth to all people. This is why the Pope holds the exact opposite view to 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 clearly reflects this profound difference, which in no way calls into question the usefulness and fruitfulness of interreligious exchange, allowing religions to confront each other on how they conceive of themselves and how they relate to one another. From this confrontation emerges a useful clarification. It is then up to each individual to position themselves in relation to this divergence, which is perhaps the most radical of all.