You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The encounter between Christianity and the religions of Asia — above all Hinduism and Buddhism — raises some of the deepest and most demanding questions in the whole theology of religions. The Abrahamic conversation with Judaism and Islam takes place within a shared monotheism: the partners argue over the identity of the one God they all confess. The conversation with Eastern religions has no such floor. Here Christianity meets radically different conceptual worlds — a non-dual metaphysics in which the self is ultimately identical with the absolute (Advaita Hinduism), a non-theistic path that brackets the question of a creator God altogether (Theravada Buddhism), cyclical cosmologies of rebirth rather than a single linear history, and contemplative disciplines with no exact parallel in the mainstream Western Church. This lesson examines the points of genuine convergence and the points of genuine difference with Hinduism and with Buddhism, the role of mysticism as a possible bridge, and the pioneering contribution of the Trappist monk Thomas Merton. Throughout, accuracy about the other traditions matters: the goal is to represent Hindu and Buddhist concepts as their own adherents would recognise them, and to distinguish the schools within each — Advaita from Vaishnava theism, Theravada from Mahayana — rather than to flatten "the East" into a single foil for Christianity.
Key term: Theology of religions — the branch of theology that asks how a tradition should understand and evaluate the truth-claims and salvific status of other religions. The exclusivism / inclusivism / pluralism typology examined elsewhere in this course is the standard map; the Eastern encounter tests that map to breaking point.
The first discipline in Christian-Hindu dialogue is to stop speaking of "Hinduism" as if it named a single doctrine. The word is a nineteenth-century umbrella for a vast family of Indian traditions that differ as much from one another as Christianity differs from Islam. On the question that matters most for dialogue — the nature of ultimate reality and its relation to the self — three classical schools of Vedanta give sharply different answers, and a Christian who has met only one of them will badly misjudge the encounter.
The point for dialogue is decisive: a Christian who meets Advaita meets a metaphysics in which the personal God is a lower manifestation of an impersonal absolute and in which the goal is identity rather than relationship; a Christian who meets Vishishtadvaita or the wider bhakti movements meets a personal, gracious God and a goal of loving union that look strikingly close to Christian theism. The encounter is therefore not one conversation but several.
The central theological question is whether Brahman can be identified with the God of Christian faith — and the honest answer depends on which Brahman is in view.
| Brahman in Advaita (nirguna) | The God of Christian theism |
|---|---|
| Ultimately impersonal — "without qualities" (nirguna); personal forms (saguna) are a lower level | Irreducibly personal — one who knows, wills, loves and relates |
| Identical with the true self (atman is Brahman) | Distinct from every creature; Creator and creation are not one being |
| The world is maya — a lower, dependent appearance | The world is real and God-given, pronounced "good" (Genesis 1) |
| Moksha = realising one's eternal identity with the one | Salvation = reconciled relationship with a personal Other, knowing and being known |
| Grace is not central to the path of knowledge (jnana) | Grace (charis) is central — salvation is God's gift, received by faith |
Yet the contrast must not be overdrawn, because Hinduism contains its own deep traditions of grace. The bhakti movements — devotion to Vishnu, Shiva, or the Divine Mother — speak of a personal Lord who reaches down to the devotee in mercy. In the Tamil Shri Vaishnava tradition the debate between the "cat school" (the kitten is carried, salvation by grace alone) and the "monkey school" (the infant monkey must cling, grace cooperating with effort) maps with uncanny closeness onto Christian debates over grace and works. To say flatly "Hinduism teaches self-salvation by karma, Christianity teaches grace" is therefore a half-truth at best: it holds for the path of knowledge in Advaita but misrepresents the bhakti traditions, where prasada (divine grace) is as central as it is in Augustine.
Key term: Brahman — in Vedanta, the ultimate reality. In Advaita it is nirguna (without qualities, beyond personhood) and identical with the inmost self; in Vishishtadvaita and the bhakti traditions it is supremely personal. Verifying which sense is meant is the first move in any honest comparison.
A second tempting but treacherous comparison is between the Christian incarnation and the Hindu avatar. Both speak of the divine taking bodily form; the Bhagavad Gita (4:7–8) has Krishna declare that he comes into being age after age to restore dharma. But the differences are structural. In classical Christianity the incarnation is unique, unrepeatable and fully historical: the eternal Word becomes one particular human being, Jesus of Nazareth, once and for all, and remains human for ever. The avatar, by contrast, is one of many descents (Vishnu has a traditional list of ten), is often only the appearance of embodiment rather than a true assumption of finite human nature, and need not be tied to verifiable history. To say "Jesus is the Christian avatar" therefore concedes more than Christian orthodoxy allows; it makes the incarnation one instance of a recurring cosmic pattern rather than the singular hinge of history. Equally, to dismiss the avatar as a mere myth misreads its function within its own tradition. The careful dialogue notes the genuine analogy (the divine condescends to be met in form) and the genuine disanalogy (once versus many; true humanity versus appearance; history versus cosmic cycle).
The relation of karma to grace is the third great node. The Christian gospel proclaims an unmerited justification: the prodigal is welcomed before he has made amends (Luke 15), and salvation is "by grace... not the result of works" (Ephesians 2:8–9). A strict doctrine of karma seems the opposite — a rigorous moral causality in which every deed bears its exact fruit across many lifetimes, so that one's condition is precisely earned. Set side by side, grace and karma can look like rival accounts of cosmic justice and mercy. But again the bhakti traditions complicate the picture: there the deity's grace can override the mechanism of karma, lifting the devotee beyond what their deeds deserve. The most rewarding treatment, then, does not pit a "grace religion" against a "works religion" but asks the sharper question of whether unconditioned grace — grace that is not the soul's own eternal nature realising itself, but the free act of a personal God toward a genuinely distinct creature — can be found in the Hindu schemes, and where.
Raimon Panikkar (1918–2010), a Catholic priest of Spanish and Indian parentage, is among the most important figures here. In The Unknown Christ of Hinduism (1964, revised 1981) he argued that Christ — understood not narrowly as the historical Jesus but as the cosmic, universal principle of divine-human-cosmic communion — is already secretly present and active within Hinduism. Hinduism, on his account, is not complete without Christ, but neither is Christianity complete without what Hinduism has seen of interiority and the non-dual depth of the divine. (Panikkar later moved toward a more thoroughly pluralist position, examined in the lesson on pluralism.)
Bede Griffiths (1906–1993), an English Benedictine, founded a Christian ashram (Shantivanam) in Tamil Nadu and adopted the dress and contemplative discipline of a Hindu sannyasi (renunciant) while remaining a committed Catholic. He held that the Christian experience of God and the Advaitin experience of Brahman are, at their summit, encounters with the same ultimate reality through different cultural lenses — a claim that draws the obvious criticism that it underplays the difference between a personal Creator and an impersonal absolute.
The Indian convert and theologian Brahmabandhab Upadhyay (1861–1907) is worth knowing as a counter-voice: he tried to express Christian faith in the categories of Vedanta (presenting the Trinity through Saccidananda — being, consciousness, bliss) while insisting on the personal, creating God of Christian confession — a reminder that "indigenising" Christianity in Hindu thought need not mean dissolving it into Advaita.
If Hinduism strains the Christian framework, Theravada Buddhism appears to break it. Christianity is theistic to its core: it confesses a personal Creator who acts in history, raises the dead, and offers eternal life. Theravada Buddhism is non-theistic — it neither affirms nor denies a creator God but treats the question as a distraction (one of the "unanswered questions" the Buddha set aside) from the urgent practical task of ending suffering. This is not a minor difference of doctrine; it removes the very thing the exclusivism / inclusivism / pluralism debate assumes all religions are responses to — a transcendent deity. (Mahayana and Pure Land Buddhism complicate even this: figures such as Amida Buddha are addressed in something close to devotion and grace, which is why one must always specify which Buddhism is in view.)
| Category | Christianity | Buddhism (esp. Theravada) |
|---|---|---|
| Ultimate concern | A personal God — Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer | No creator God affirmed; nirvana; in Mahayana, sunyata (emptiness) |
| The self | An immortal soul, created by God, destined for eternal life | Anatta — no permanent, unchanging self |
| The human plight | Sin — alienation from God through disobedience | Dukkha — unsatisfactoriness driven by craving (tanha) and attachment |
| The remedy | Salvation — reconciliation with God by grace through faith | Liberation — extinction of craving via the Noble Eightfold Path |
| Cosmology | Linear — creation, history, eschatological fulfilment | Cyclical — samsara, the round of rebirth |
| Ethics | Love of God and neighbour; divine command | Compassion (karuna); the Eightfold Path; no divine lawgiver |
Two differences cut deepest. First, anatta (no-self) directly contradicts the Christian doctrine of an immortal soul made for eternal communion with God: what, on a Buddhist view, would even be "saved"? Second, nirvana is not a heavenly relationship with a personal God but the "blowing out" of the fires of craving and the end of rebirth — a goal whose grammar is so unlike "eternal life with God" that some Christians have wrongly heard it as mere annihilation, which Buddhists deny.
And yet suffering supplies a genuine convergence. Both traditions place suffering at the very centre of their diagnosis of the human condition. Christianity reads suffering through the Fall and, supremely, through the Cross: in Christ, God enters and bears human suffering, and that suffering is made redemptive. Buddhism opens with the First Noble Truth — that ordinary existence is dukkha, unsatisfactory — and the whole of the Buddha's teaching is an analysis of suffering's cause (craving) and a prescription for its cessation (the Eightfold Path). The two diagnoses differ (alienation from God versus craving and ignorance) and the two cures differ (grace versus disciplined self-transformation), but the shared refusal to look away from suffering, and the shared conviction that the human problem is at root a spiritual one, give the dialogue a real centre of gravity.
Key term: Anatta (non-self) — the Buddhist teaching that there is no permanent, independent self or soul; what we call "I" is a changing bundle of processes. It is the sharpest point of contradiction with the Christian doctrine of the soul, and the reason a simple "all religions seek the same God/self" cannot hold.
The most fruitful Christian-Buddhist exchange has been not doctrinal but contemplative. Buddhist disciplines — vipassana (insight) and Zen zazen (seated meditation) — have been studied and, with care, adapted by Christian contemplatives. Key figures include Hugo Enomiya-Lassalle (1898–1990), a German Jesuit who practised Zen in Japan and argued that zazen could be undertaken without disloyalty to Christian faith; the Benedictine John Main (1926–1982), who recovered a Christian tradition of "meditation" (the repetition of a sacred word) partly through encounter with an Indian teacher; and the Vietnamese Zen monk Thich Nhat Hanh (1926–2022), whose dialogue with Christians (Living Buddha, Living Christ, 1995) emphasised mindfulness, compassion, and his concept of "interbeing." The promise of this exchange is that practice may reach where doctrine cannot; the risk, examined below, is that the practices are torn from the doctrinal frameworks that give them meaning.
At its most rigorous, the Christian-Buddhist conversation reaches the relation between the Mahayana concept of sunyata (emptiness) and the Christian doctrine of God. Masao Abe (1915–2006), of the Kyoto School, took the Christian hymn of Philippians 2:5–8 — in which Christ "emptied himself" (kenosis) — and proposed that self-emptying is not unique to the incarnate Christ but is the very character of ultimate reality. His "dynamic sunyata" is not blank nothingness but a ceaseless self-emptying that he compared to self-giving love, inviting Christians to think of God too as essentially self-emptying. Christian respondents (in the well-known volume The Emptying God) welcomed the depth of the proposal while pressing the question whether an impersonal emptiness can really do the work of the personal, loving God of the gospel, or whether the analogy, pushed far enough, quietly dissolves the personal into the impersonal.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.