The Eastern Orthodox Theology and Buddhism―Deification and Nirvåˆa―

Tatsuya Yamazaki

IntroductionA

N Eastern Orthodox theologian Vladimir Nikolayevich Lossky(1903–1958), who was born in St. Petersburg and made a great
contribution to introducing the core of Russian Orthodox Church to theWestern European world, describes in his book The Mystical Theologyof the Eastern Church (Théologie mystique de l’Église d’Orient) that themain theme of the eastern theology lies in the deification (θωσις) of
human beings. In addition, he considers no distinction of the mystery
itself and mystical thought, and mystical individual experience andchurch community to be a traditional feature of the eastern theology. In
time when western theology dominated the theological field, Lossky’s
research re-sparked interest in eastern theology, and opened it up for awider public. This is the significance of Lossky’s research.
Since the last century Christianity has faced some problems in environmental and bioethical areas. By facing many of these problems,
Christianity has also faced the fundamental problem “what exactly is
Christianity?” which has been raised from inside. From the basis of sucha historical background, Christian ecumenism, i.e. the movement for theunity of Christ’s church came to be advocated from within Christianity.
“The New Patristics” which Lossky and Meyendorff (1926–1992) mainly led has revived eastern theologians including the Greek Fathers andalso Gregory Palamas whose thoughts were largely ignored until today.
It became clear by their contribution that the spiritual flow of eastern
theologians find its roots in the gospels of the Apostles and the Greek
Fathers.
First, I would like to present the concept of deification in the eastern
theology, and then, the concept of nirvåˆa in Buddhism.

165

166

THE EASTERN ORTHODOX THEOLOGY AND BUDDHISM

I. Deification
1. The Transfiguration of Jesus on the Mountain TaborIs it possible for us to view God in this world? This question is ultimate
for theology and salvation. According to the Christian dogma, eventhough the vision of God (visio Dei) experience is not possible to all, theway to the vision is not completely closed. It is the transfiguration ofJesus on the Mountain Tabor that the eastern orthodox presents as a Biblical ground for its possibility. Matthew says:
And after six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he
was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his
clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before
them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will
put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.

While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voicefrom the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am wellpleased. Listen to him!”
When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. But Jesus came and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Don’t beafraid.” When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus. [Mt.17:1–
8]
This miracle is a supernatural phenomenon for the three disciples.
And in fact, this “supernature” originates in the mystery that Jesus is theSon of God. The light which shines from Christ’s face is important forunderstanding this miracle. Three disciples saw God as the light, that isthe vision of God-experience. This miracle links closely to Incarnation(incarnatio). How was the Incarnation interpreted in the tradition of theEastern Orthodox Church? An Alexandria’s Bishop Athanasius (ca.
293–373), one of the Greek Fathers, describes in his book The Incarnation of the Word (De Incarnatione Verbi), “Indeed the Word became
incarnate for making us into God.” However, it was not until Jesus diedon the cross and then resurrected that we understood that God had
accepted human nature (natura humana). So it can be said that the transfiguration of Jesus was, as it were, a resurrection while still alive. This is
the core deification in eastern theology.

THE EASTERN ORTHODOX THEOLOGY AND BUDDHISM

167

2. Prayer and Faith
Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951) wrote once in his diary that themeaning of the belief in God lies in understanding that we have questions about the meaning of life, recognizing that some problems still
remains to be solved and taking notice that life has its own meaning.1
This philosopher, who considered the world as facts to be said on
grounds that the totality of existent facts is the world,2 knows nonetheless problems not to have been solved. They are problems of life namely
what meaning life has. The consequence was necessary deduced fromthe identity that the limits of language means the limits of the world.3
Because the facts belong only to the task, not to the solution.4 So weshould consider the meaning of our living as mysterious not to be said.
Our present life is as enigmatic as the eternal one.5
But he says that the prayer is the thought about the meaning of life.6
The world as facts can be said but its meaning cannot be said. Also wecannot say the meaning of life. Because the world and life are one.7
When it is even enigmatic for us to live in this world, the solution of theriddle of life lies outside space and time which construct this world.8
The facts of our living in this world do not give us the meaning of life.
As the limits of the world are also the limits of language, we cannot represent the meaning of life logically. Is it impossible to communicate
with the existent beyond this world namely God at all? According to
Wittgenstein, we cannot speak of the outside of this world but we canthink of it. This thinking is prayer of human act. Therefore the prayer
means the conversation with God and inquiring the meaning of life. But
it is necessary for us to understand this inquiry as the postulate. Wittgenstein considers this understanding as faith.
The reason why I have described Wittgenstein’s philosophy which
seems not to be related to eastern theology lies in the intention to manifest the connection between prayer and life and the relation between
prayer and faith as preliminary consideration.
One of Greek Fathers, John Climacus (Ioannes Klimax, ca. 525/30–606), the director of the Saint Catherine monastery in Sinai in the seventh century, described in his book The Ladder of Divine Ascent (Sacla
Paradisi) as follows :Prayer is by nature a dialog and a union of man with God. Its effect is tohold the world together. It achieves a reconsiliation with God.9

Prayer means not only a dialog with God, but also a union of man with
God. The Love of God gives everyone the possibility of union with God.

168

THE EASTERN ORTHODOX THEOLOGY AND BUDDHISM

But we need a practice in order to achieve the union. One practice is a
spiritual movement currently practiced presently in the Eastern Church,which is called hesychasm (συχασµ ς). The person practicing thisspirituality is called a hesycast, and usually lives a hermitic life hiddenfrom society, and the spiritual state they achieve is called “hesychia”(συχα).
Surviving in a harsh environment, an angel’s power is needed for
those living a hermitic life.10 Because the model of hesycast is a Father
who self-trained in the desert dependent on the power of God in order tomake a living alone. The place where can perceive God as Saviour is thedesert. The hesycasts commit themselves to a life of solely praying is
introduced in 1 Thessalonians “Pray without ceasing.”
The Prayer is called “Jesus Prayer” which is a repetition of the following phrase, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, asinner.” The hesychasts seclude themselves from the world and consider
corporal desire and pleasure, wealth and fame of this world as transientand have a craving only for vision of God.
The meaning of the repeating of the Jesus Prayer is to let the remembrance of Jesus be present with our every breath.11 The remembrance ofJesus should not be mere imagination but meditation of Jesus existinginside us.
St. Paul says:
For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I havebeen crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.
The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved
me and gave himself for me. (Gal.2:19–20)

Here is described the Incarnation and the death on the cross and the Resurrection in St. Paul’s existence. The Crucifixion is simply not a historical fact, but a reality of his own life. Dying to the law and living for
Christ is to bring his life to completion. The hermit who reaches dispassion (παθεα), i.e. liberty from all the passions that flesh brings about,realizes the breath of Christ who makes him living. Climacus explainsthat dispassion is resurrection of the soul prior to that of the body.12
Christ is the great life which can animate human beings.
Faith is a means through which we convert our attitude that Christ
exists outside of ourselves, to one where he exists inside. Through faith,
we can participate in the eternal life inherent in Christ.
Heaven is a symbol for completion of our lives, and we can reach this
only through faith. Heaven means our original self before Creation.
Self-completion by faith is to return to the original self we have lost inTHE EASTERN ORTHODOX THEOLOGY AND BUDDHISM

169

this world. Eastern theology is built on the tradition that the Apostles
and the Greek Fathers consider the love of God as the great life which
can animate human life.
We mentioned in the beginning of this section Wittgenstein’s philosophy and showed how prayer and faith are closely related with life. Theinterpretation of eastern theologians made it clear that our life has twodimensions i.e. the daily and the transcendental life. The approach to thetranscendental life is the way of prayer. Therefore “Lord, have mercy onme” should not be understood based on logic which structurizes theworld, but should be understood as the only means by which we cancommunicate with God existing in heaven. The answer to the call of
God which awakes our original selves is faith, therefore prayer is by nomeans meaningless.
3. The Vision of God
I would like to describe the mechanism of the vision a the base of thedescription of Gregory Palamas (Gregorios Palamas, ca. 1296–1359).
He describes in his book, “Triads in Defense of the Holy Hesychasts”(Λγος π ρ τ ν ιρ ς συχαζντων):The human mind also, and not only the angelic, transcends itself, and by
victory over the passions acquires an angelic form. It, too, will attain tothat light and will become worthy of a supernatural vision of God, notseeing the divine essence, but seeing God by a revelation appropriate
and analogous to Him.13

Those who acquired the dispassion by faith see that light. It is the samelight which the three disciples saw on Mountain Tabor. But the experience does not mean the vision of the essence of God. The concept“essence” comes from a Greek “ousia” (οσα), and in the history ofphilosophy said, ousia is the term frequently seen in writings of Aristotle. The concept signifies “What is it ?” (τ τ στιν) or “What was it?”(τ τ ν εινα) of things being in the actual world. In other words, thissignifies the impossibility to view the essence of God, meanig we cannot
see it by any means.
Then, I want to raise a question “what is that light ?” Palamas says:
There exists, then, an eternal light, other than the divine essence; it is
not itself an essence—far from it!—but an energy of Superessential.
This light without beginning or end is neither sensible nor intelligible,
in the proper sense. It is spiritual and divine, distinct from all creaturesin its transcendence; and what is neither sensible nor intelligible does

170

THE EASTERN ORTHODOX THEOLOGY AND BUDDHISM

not fall within the scope of the senses as such, nor of the intellectual
faculty considered in itself.14

Palamas calls that light “energy” (νργεια) that means the action ofGod. The light is without beginning or end, i.e. it is transcending all
creatures and the increate. But we cannot view it with our eyes nor intellectually, because it is spiritual and divine.
This light is the one that we can view only with “spiritual sensation”(ασθησις πνευµατικ ). According to Palamas, the intellect is refinedby dispassion and when man becomes similar to an angel or God, he canenjoy the brightness of God consequently. Without the power of theHoly Spirit we cannot view the light.
According to Palamas, we cannot see the divine essence, but we cansee God as the energy by the revelation. Palamas had an opponent
whose name was Barlaam (ca. 1290–1348). This Greek taught theology
and philosophy at the University of Constantinople. He gave mainly thelecture on the theology of Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite (ca. 500),
because he found this theology to be agnostic. Barlaam was, so to speak,nominalist, so that he considered that God could be recognized by nomeans. Although he saw that the theology of Thomas (Thomas deAquino, ca. 1225–74) as the type of the western, he criticized Thomasstrongly, because Thomas insisted that the human intellect could reachall existents. The reason why the eastern theology fascinated him lies inthat this theology concluded the recognition of God to be impossible. As
Barlaam experienced the hermitic life with hesychasts for a while, thespirituality with which they sought after the vision of God gave him agreat shock, so that he concluded their practice as uncanny.
Palamas wrote Triads in Defense of the Holy Hesychasts in order toreply to the criticism of Barlaam. This book also afforded the opportunity to represent the system of hesychasm. At the council in Constantinople in 1341, the dispute between Palamas and Barlaam ended by judging
Barlaam to be heretic. The Eastern Church approved the distinction
between the divine essence and the divine energy in the theology ofPalamas orthodox. Therefore the vision of God did not lapse into theheresy insisting that God can be perceived15 but developed into the central doctrine of the Eastern Church.
It is not until we can accept the grace of God, that we can achieve thevision of God. But God that we can view as the light is His energy, but
we should not consider the energy as His essence. God shares with us
not His nature, but His glory and brightness deify us. Palamas calls also
the light “divinity” (θε της), further “deification itself” (ατοθωσις)THE EASTERN ORTHODOX THEOLOGY AND BUDDHISM

171

and “the origin of the divinity” (θεοαρχα).
What are the ground on which we can be deified? According to Palamas, it consists in the Incarnation. He thinks that the infinite Love of
God has united the divine Person with human nature and has given us
life in this world with a body. In addition, this Love has united itself
with the human person and made the body the shine of the divine. It is
one of the features of eastern theology to interpret the reality of the
Incarnation as the deification of human beings.

II. Stillness
1. Nirvåˆa in early Buddhism
All human acts in this world can be classified into one of the four sufferings (四苦) namely birth, old age, sickness and death. No one can escapefrom these sufferings or the transmigration. Birth and death repeat infinitely. The origin of these sufferings must be clarified in order to be liberated from them. Buddhism explains the origin as the fundamental
ignorance of the true nature and existence (無明). Wavering arises fromignorance and the self is constituted as the subject of this wavering. In
turn, attachment arises when considering the self as an existence beyond
time and space.
The Buddha says:
For him who clings there is wavering; for him who clings not there is nowavering. Wavering not being, there is calm; calm being, there is nobending. Bending not being, there is no coming-and -going (to birth);coming-and-going not being, there is no decease-and-rebirth. Deceaseand-rebirth not being, there is no ‘here’ or ‘yonder’ nor anything
between the two. This indeed is the end of Ill.16

The state in which all sufferings disappear is when all things have been
stilled. There being nothing going, there is nothing dying. And there
nothing coming, there is nothing being reborn. There is no here nor yonder because “yonder” cannot be constituted without being “here.” The
state where there is no birth and no death is nirvåˆa, i.e. the stillness
explained by the Buddha.
The Buddha further says:
He who has reached the consummation, who does not tremble, who is
without thirst and without sin, he has broken all the thorns of life: thiswill be his last body.17

172

THE EASTERN ORTHODOX THEOLOGY AND BUDDHISM“His last body” is the body that he who has reached enlightenment has.
The reason why the body is described the “last body” is that he is notgoing to be reborn.
Nirvåˆa explained in Buddhism is different from “hesychia”(συχα) in the tradition of the eastern theology, as Meyendorff indicated, because the latter seeks to be animated by the great life, i.e., God.
The former is to accept “all things are transient” and the latter is theplace of the Trinity given by the grace of God. The reason for the difference between the two is to be seen in the fact that Buddhism has no Creator. Creation means that God as the Being Itself (Ipsum Esse per se)gives everything its own being, but the Buddha does not have such a roleas the creator.
According to Christian thinking, sufferings come from original sin. It
is the transcendental ground of human incompletion which appears as
sickness or death. But God has no room for death to enter. Therefore,salvation means receiving eternal life from God. In Buddhism, life anddeath coexist but life exists not as substance. That is, life is not sustainedby a greater life, and liberty from sufferings in our lives is not achievedby connecting to a greater life.
2. Nirvåˆa in Mahåyåna BuddhismNirvåˆa is also considered the goal of practice in Mahåyåna Buddhism,
but one difference is the appearance of bodhisattvas, who do not remain
in nirvåˆa but exist in the world of transmigration to save all sentient
beings from sufferings. This nirvåˆa is called “non-abiding nirvåˆa” (無住処涅槃). We can find this feature only in Mahåyåna.
Någårjuna (ca. 150–250) describes in his book MËlamadhyamakakårikå:The transmigration is nothing essentially different from nirvåˆa. Nirvåˆa is nothing essentially different from the transmigration.
The limits of nirvåˆa are the limits of the transmigration. Between thetwo, also, there is not the slightest difference whatsoever.18

According to Någårjuna, all is ßËnyatå. And ßËnyatå exists as non-substantiality. Therefore the boundary line between nirvåˆa and transmigration is meaningless. But considering nirvåˆa as nothingness comes toßËnyatå, too. Nirvåˆa is neither being nor non-being. However, whetherNirvåˆa is being or non-being, there appears attachment. And attachment, mentioned above, originates from fundamental ignorance. In aworld in which fundamental ignorance disappears, the definitions oftransmigration or nirvana become meaningless.

THE EASTERN ORTHODOX THEOLOGY AND BUDDHISM

173

The Buddha’s description that there is no “here” or “yonder” nor anything between the two applies to the relation between nirvåˆa and transmigration. Nirvåˆa is not “yonder.” From this viewpoint, we can say thatthe attitude for bodhisattvas not to stay in nirvåˆa does not mean denying the Buddha’s theory of nirvåˆa, but interpreting it properly for thesalvation of human beings. And bodhisattva’s acts of salvation are amanifestation of the compassion of the eternal Buddha which overflows
from the within.
The idea of deification in the tradition of the eastern theology is one
that is easy to relate to for Buddhists. I think it is a common feature ofboth the eastern theology and Buddhism to have the unity of the transcendent with the human as a central theme and to see the transcendentinside of the self. Research of the eastern theology has just begun inJapan. When we deepen this research further, based on the research of
Lossky and Meyendorff, the unknown world of the human being will be
unlocked. Then, we can advance to a new stage of dialogue between
Christianity and Buddhism.
Notes
1
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tagebücher 1914–1916, Ludwig Wittgenstein Werkausgabe
Bd. I, Erste Auflage 1989, Suhrkamp, S. 168.; An einen Gott glauben heißt, die Fragenach dem Sinn des Lebens verstehen. An einen Gott glauben heißt sehen, daß es mit den
Tatsachen der Welt noch nicht abgetan ist. An Gott glauben heißt sehen, daß das Leben
einen Sinn hat.
2
Tractus logico-philosophicus, S. 14.: 2.04; Die Gesamtheit der bestehenden Sachverhalt ist die Welt.
3
Tractus logico-philosophicus, S. 64.: 6.4; Die Grenzen meiner Sprache bedeuten die
Grenzen meiner Welt.
4
Tractus logico-philosophicus, S. 84.: 6.4321; Die Tatsachen gehören alle nur zur
Aufgabe, nicht zur Lösung.
5
Tractus logico-philosophicus, S. 84.: 6.4312; Ist denn dieses ewige Leben dannnicht ebenso rätselhaft wie das gegenwärtige ?
6
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tagebücher 1914–1916, S. 167.: Das Gebet ist der Gedanke
an den Sinn des Lebens.
7
Tractus logico-philosophicus, S. 67.: 5.62; Die Welt und das Leben sind Eins.
8
Tractus logico-philosophicus, S. 84.: 6.4321; Die Lösung des Rätsels des Lebens inRaum und Zeit liegt außerhalb von Raum und Zeit.
9
John Climacus, The Ladder of Devine Ascent, translation by Colm Luibheid andNorman Russel, notes on translation by Norman Russel, introduction by Kallistos Ware
(The Classics of Western Spirituality), New York/Ramsey/Tronto 1982, p.274.
10John Climacus, The Ladder of Devine Ascent, p. 263.
11
John Climacus, The Ladder of Devine Ascent, p. 270.
12
John Climacus, The Ladder of Devine Ascent, p. 282
13
Gregory Palamas, The Triads, edited with an introduction by John Meyendorff
translation by Nicholas Gendle (The Classics of Western Spirituality), 1983, New

174

THE EASTERN ORTHODOX THEOLOGY AND BUDDHISM

York/Ramsey/Toronto, p. 32.
14
Gregory Palamas, The Triads, p. 100.
15
According to the Christian doctrine, God is a body and has a corpus by no means.
This is universal doctrine including that of the Eastern Church. Thomas explains this
doctrine in Summa theologiae part 1 question 3.
Summa theologiae I, qu. 3 art. 1, co.: Respondeo dicendum absolute Deum non esse
corpus. Quod tripliciter ostendi potest. Primo quidem, quia nullum corpus movet non
motum, ut patet inducendo per singula. Ostensum est autem supra quod Deus est primum movens immobile. Unde manifestum est quod Deus non est corpus. Secundo, quianecesse est id quod est primum ens, esse in actu, et nullo modo in potentia. Licet enim in
uno et eodem quod exit de potentia in actum, prius sit potentia quam actus tempore, simpliciter tamen actus prior est potentia, quia quod est in potentia, non reducitur in actum
nisi per ens actu. Ostensum est autem supra quod Deus est primum ens. Impossibile est
igitur quod in Deo sit aliquid in potentia. Omne autem corpus est in potentia, quia continuum, inquantum huiusmodi, divisibile est in infinitum. Impossibile est igitur Deumesse corpus. Tertio, quia Deus est id quod est nobilissimum in entibus, ut ex dictis patet.
Impossibile est autem aliquod corpus esse nobilissimum in entibus. Quia corpus aut est
vivum, aut non vivum. Corpus autem vivum, manifestum est quod est nobilius corpore
non vivo. Corpus autem vivum non vivit inquantum corpus, quia sic omne corpus
viveret, oportet igitur quod vivat per aliquid aliud, sicut corpus nostrum vivit per animam. Illud autem per quod vivit corpus, est nobilius quam corpus. Impossibile est igitur
Deum esse corpus.
As God is neither a body nor has a corpus, He is not a visible object at all. Consequently the intention to perceive God in this world spoils the completeness of God andlapses into heresy. Seeing from the context, one of opportunities of Barlaam’s criticism
against hesychasts is Messalians who did not think ceremonies as important. They also
insisted that the salvation could be given by prayer and God could be seen in this world,so that they lapsed into heresy. Barlaam identified hesychasts with Messalians. But Palamas insisted that the vision of God was possible only as the energy which was distinct
from the divine essence.
16
The Minor Anthologies of The Pali Canon Part II. UDANA: Verses of Uplift and
ITIVUTTAKA : As It Was Said, transl. by F. L. Woodward, Oxford 1996, UDANA,VIII iv, pp. 98–99.
17
The Sacred Books of The East, transl. and edited by F. Muller, vol. x Part I.
DHAMMAPADA, Part II. SUTTA-NIPATA, Delhi 1973, p.83.
18Någårjuna, A Translation of his MËlamadhyamakakårikå with an Introductory
Essay, by Kenneth K. Inada, Tokyo, 1970, p. 158.