Buddhism; An Orthodox Perspective
“Is Orthodox Spirituality Just Buddhism With Jesus?”
Believe it or not, this is indeed a claim that is made by some Lutherans who know neither anything about Orthodox Spirituality nor Buddhism. “They’re both called Eastern spirituality so therefore the same!” is an actual word concept fallacy they fall into. I want to start by saying not all Lutherans make this error, just a few that I have witnessed which this article is aimed at. I will distinguish the differences between these two, and actually argue that Lutheranism looks more like a Buddhism knock off than Orthodoxy does as they claim. May Christ grace these words in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Nirvana
The most obvious difference between Orthodox Christianity and Buddhism is nirvana. It is defined as “a transcendent state in which there is neither suffering, desire, nor sense of self, and the subject is released from the effects of karma and the cycle of death and rebirth. It represents the final goal of Buddhism.”
In the eschatological framework, yes indeed we also seek to achieve a transcendent state where suffering does not exist, “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away.” - Revelation 21:4. Lutherans would certainly agree with this. So by the same logic, they fall under their own condemnation that Lutheranism is just Buddhism with Jesus.
But as for the practical framework in the here and now, nirvana is completely opposed to Christianity. To go by the definition previously given, Christians do not avoid suffering, but embrace it as one means of achieving Theosis. Buddhists seek to avoid suffering. Buddhists want to rid themselves of desire, not seeing that the desire to be rid of desire is in fact, a desire. “Desires are inexhaustible; I vow to put an end to them” is one of the Four Vows of the Bodhisattva.
Orthodox Christians know that desire itself can be good or bad depending upon its use, and desiring union with God is good. Desiring to love, serve others, and praise God are all positive things that should be promoted. Desire is encouraged to be used in the proper way.
Buddhism seeks to nullify the “self,” while Christianity seeks to fully reveal the self in Christ. God is a Person, so the human person is important to preserve in Orthodoxy. Death and rebirth in one respect is similar, as we are called to die to ourselves every day and be born again in Christ. However the the Final Judgment where Jesus Christ will judge everyone at His Second Coming shows we do not believe in death and rebirth like Buddhists do.
I will defer getting into the topic that Buddhists don’t believe in a Creator, but believe in devas (celestial beings or “gods”). As this is the crux of the article argument from the Lutherans, that we are the same, we just believe in a Creator and they don’t.
The Uncreated Light
“Buddhists agree with everything they say about seeing the Uncreated Light.” Is that so? The Lutherans here make another word concept fallacy with the word “light.” Light in Buddhism is just a metaphor for Enlightenment which advanced Buddhists ‘enter into this light.’ So first off, Buddhism does speak of light, but in no reference is this light uncreated like it is in Orthodoxy. The light experienced in Buddhism is created and an awakening to an impersonal truth. The light experienced in Orthodox Christianity is uncreated and a direct communion with the Personal Absolute Truth of Jesus Christ.
And as explained previously, the means of which is completely different. Both the truth itself is impersonal in Buddhism and to achieve enlightenment you destroy the self entirely, so there’s no self in theory on your end either. Meanwhile Theosis is Hypostatic (Personal) in Orthodoxy. It’s about submitting the person of myself to the Person of God. And the more I experience the Person of Christ, the more I fully see and understand myself as made in His image.
In the Dhammapada, which are a collection of sayings from Buddha it says in verse 87, “Leaving the way of darkness, the wise man will follow the way of light, leave security behind and seek freedom from attachment.” Here Buddha himself clearly associates light with freedom from attachments, whilst the Uncreated Light is an attachment to God.
Another reading of Verses 87 & 88: “The man of wisdom, leaving the home of craving and having Nibbana as his goal, should give up dark, evil ways and cultivate pure, good ones. He should seek detachment… He should also give up sensual pleasures, and clinging to nothing, should cleanse himself of all impurities of the mind.” The goal as Christians including Lutherans is not to cling to nothing, but to cling to God. This clinging does not destroy us as individuals but fully reveals and actualizes us in the Light of Truth Himself.
Backfire
Harkening back to the original definition of nirvana and Buddhism, I will levy the argument back at this specific group of Lutherans with the fact that they are monergists. Monergism is the belief that God’s salvation is His act alone and overrides free will in humans. Our cooperation is meaningless in monergism. How is this not a complete negation of being and negation of the self as Buddhism espouses? I mean, Martin Luther does have an entire book titled “Bondage of the Will.”
Lutherans taking from Roman Catholic theology do not believe in an essence energy distinction either. Therefore there is no possibility of the Uncreated Light, only a created light much like Buddhism.
As I have presented in this article, Orthodox Christianity and Buddhism are entirely different in both goal and means. I think it’s actually more accurate to say that Lutheranism resembles Buddhism more than Orthodoxy does. While at the same time I can fairly say (unlike this specific group of Lutherans) that there are many more differences between Lutheranism and Buddhism than there are similarities.
I was from a protestant reformer background. I think one of the biggest differences between the reformed evangelical and buddhism is that most Protestant denominations don’t emphasise much about the transcendence and the mystical aspect of God and spiritual life like the east. They are more ethical and rational based. The goal for them is not so much of an ontological transformation but an ethical transformation.
there are issues with the presentation of Buddhism. The biggest is using the term “Buddhism”! Which Buddhism? At the very least we should specify which of the three turnings are being discussed as the goals of the first and the last two turnings are quite different. For example, sometimes you seem to be critiquing Theravada notions of nirvana(nibbana), but then you quote Mahayana passages. Buddhism is extremely broad and the differences between sub schools can be much farther apart than those between different Christian ideologies.
Honestly, it’s clear that anyone who suggests the uncreated light is the same as the light metaphors in Buddhism either knows very little about buddhism, or little about the uncreated light. Nowhere is the same type of experience we see with St. Symeon for example described in comprobable terms. The “light” in the theravada pali canon is almost entirely associated with knowledge (“light arose”=having an insight). It’s not a common feature of meditation methods in the canon, although there are a few mentions of light in this respect scattered throughout it. That being said, the Pali canon does repeatedly describe realizing of the unfabricated/asankhata which is uncreated. A famous passage from the udana (inspired utterances) describes nibbana as being without change, unconditioned, etc. So while there’s no light, it’s not correct to state that Theravada Buddhism doesn’t aim at realizing an uncreated reality. How we interpret that idea in Theravada depends though-some will argue for an almost “trivial” satisfaction of these terms. Nibbana is trivially uncreated because it is merely name for a cessation. Others will view nibbana a bit more cataphatically based on this passage. Regardless, nibbana is a so subtle that the arahant can’t even agree they will exist in it after death! There is no life in the usual sense in nibbana of theravada, and this is obviously quite different from orthodoxy.
Anyways, for Theravada at least there is no uncreated light talked about. If we go to say dzogchen, I’m less sure. There is an idea of luminosity/clarity gsal ba in dzogchen and much of mahayana. It’s not a literal light, but closer to the unfabricated clarity of one’s natural empty appearances. Definitely not the same idea, but some practices in dzogchen which rely on visionary experiences could result in lights. These are seen as empty appearances which are “naturally formed” (lhundrup). I’d lean towards saying the experience is still almost entirely different, and the doctrine of emptiness definitely colors how these visions are encountered. Emptiness is in no way compatible with God, even with St. Dionysius’s neoplatonic interpretation.
But that’s just two schools! Even within theravada there are any different ideas as well, and my perspective was more focused on “Early Buddhism” than modern. If we venture into Mahayana there are a trillion and one schools. Even if we could find some school claiming to see uncreated light, so what? It’s a fallacious argument from the start that just because someone claims a similar point or practice that the practice must be wrong.