Byzantine fractals? Internal religious pluralism and Buddhist-Christian dialogue

At the recent meeting of the European Academy of Religion held in Bologna (Italy) in June 2022, scholars from all over the world were finally able to meet again in person – some for the first time since this conference was last held in the same location in 2019. As usual, the European Network of Buddhist-Christian studies – the European sister organization of our Society- organized a few panels. One of them was devoted to Perry Schmidt-Leukel’s new work Das himmlische Geflecht (The Celestial Web), a monograph published in German in May 2022 that is not yet available in English. Many readers will be familiar with Schmidt-Leukel’s numerous contributions to Buddhist-Christian dialogue, such as his commentary on the Bodhicaryāvātara.

What does this volume seek to accomplish? Schmidt-Leukel starts off the image of Indra’s net, a celestial web whose knots carry marvelous and resplendent jewels - and where every jewel reflects the whole web in its own way. This image -rooted in the Atharva Veda, but also explored in Buddhist texts such as the highly-influential Avataṃsaka sūtra- perfectly encapsulates the emptiness – the lack of an unchanging substantial ground- that constitutes the totality of the universe. At the same time, this vision of the world suggests that whoever can see the entire world in a fragment never loses sight of the distinguishing characteristics of its totality, envisaging the whole and its parts as mutually penetrating and complementary realities.

A tree-shaped fractal…

Once this theory is applied to Buddhist-Christian dialogue, Buddhism and Christianity are no longer seen as homogenous realities, but rather as multi-layered and partly heterogeneous structures. In the 1990s and early 2000s, as the discipline of comparative theology came to acquire a distinctive character setting it apart from comparative religious studies, the question of the theological rational of religious diversity acquired renewed relevance. Many theories of religious pluralism were grounded in theological metanarratives that appeared increasingly untenable or questionable, and often relied on essentialist readings of different religious traditions.  To overcome this impasse, Schmidt-Leukel retrieves Benoit Mandelbrot’ work on the fractal character of the natural order and its tendency to self-replicate identically at different levels- something one can see in the replication in individual mountains or smaller rock sections of the structure of whole mountain chains. This fractal approach helps us discern the parallels between interreligious and intrareligious differences, thereby rediscovering the complementary ways different traditions develop conceptual maps of ultimate reality and its multiple facets. In this way, you can finally ground a theology of religions that affirms different religious traditions as distinct, yet complementary ways of salvation. At the same time, you can also offer a renewed pathway into the study of religious experience.

If we apply this approach to Buddhist-Christian dialogue, we can discover many interesting points of contact. In late Byzantium, scholars debated whether individuals could apprehend the divine essence with their mind. Some argued that this was possible; others claimed that this approach reduced religious experience to an intellectual insight, and also failed to account for God’s radical otherness and transcendence. Supporters of the former position (such as Barlaam of Calabria, who lived between 1290 and 13480) were influenced by Latin scholasticism. On the contrary, Gregory Palamas (1296-1357) affirmed a distinction between the divine essence and the divine energies, claiming that one could only access the latter through a participation in the sacraments that had a psycho-somatic impact on the practitioner. Byzantine supporters of the Palamite position were accused of threatening the unity of the divine essence.

A portrait of Gregory Palamas (1296-1347)

If we look at Tibet, we will see that an analogous discussion happened around the interpretation of an important text known as the Abhisamayālaṅkāra. Some authors affirmed that this text taught the existence of three Buddha bodies: two (the so-called rupakāyas) belonged to the conventional realm – the lower one to our ordinary reality, the higher one to the ‘pure realms’ of individual Buddhas and bodhisattvas- whereas the third one (known as dharmakāya) was the undifferentiated emptiness of Buddhahood. Other authors – such as the members of the Gelugpa sect, which counts the Dalai Lama as its member- thought that the dharmakāya comprise a lower dimension open to all sentient beings, and a higher one (the svabhavikāya) that epistemologically exclusive to the Buddha. Supporters of the former position emphasized a yogic-experiential approach to Buddhist practice and emphasized that everyone could access Buddhahood in its entirety. Supporters of the latter did not deny this last point, but sought to emphasize the extraordinary character of Buddhahood and sought to conceptualize it from a logical and metaphysical point of view. Even here, the supporters of this distinction were accused of introducing an ontological wedge into the Buddha nature.   

An imaginary portrait of Tsong kha pa (1357-1419), one of the supports of the four-body theory

This application of Schmidt-Leuke’s method shows that these two traditions encompass both positions – one emphasizing the unity of ultimate reality, the other seeking to draw a distinction between its transcendent core and its immanent and accessible dimension- within their larger history. The difference is that in Tibet it was the supports of the four-body theory that leaned more heavily on logic and metaphysics, whereas in Bzyantium it was the supporters of strict divine simplicity that chose to do so.

The session in Bologna invited all scholars of Buddhist-Christian dialogue to adopt a new approach to interreligious dialogue, showing how much we can learn about a different religious tradition once we move beyond essentialist models of religious pluralism. Perhaps this fractal method will also open up new perspective on the dialogue between Buddhism and Eastern or Byzantine Christianity, which has always played a rather marginal role in the context of the European and American academy.

Thomas Cattoi is Associate Professor of Christology and Culture at the Jesuit School of Theology at Santa Clara University and the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley. He is co-editor of the journal Buddhist-Christian Studies. Recently he co-edited the Handbook of Buddhist-Christian Studies for Routledge (available in November 2022).   

Introduction to the tab Books and Articles

Dear Friends,

Welcome to the tab Books and Articles. In this tab we would like to discuss books, book's chapters and scholarly articles somehow related to Buddhist-Christian studies and Buddhist-Christian dialogue.  

Please feel free to contribute and send your posts to the moderator. You may also contribute with comments about posts.  

Thanks,

Abraham Velez de Cea

On Jeanine Hill Fletcher’s “We are All Hybrids”

Jeanine Hill Fletcher on Identities in Dialogue

David Gardiner, Colorado College

The depth of interfaith study, dialog and practice (dual-belonging) can be enhanced by philosophical approaches to how one understands “identity.” A very helpful essay on this topic is Jeanine Hill Fletcher’s “We are All Hybrids,” in her book Monopoly on Salvation? A Feminist Approach to Religious Pluralism. Hill Fletcher begins by problematizing the very category of “the religions” by which our studies proceed. She notes that a standard understanding of the phrase itself is prone to reification, and “serves as a means to conceptually control an otherwise overwhelmingly complex reality.” She points both to the fact that any given tradition has multiple significant components and to how any individual practitioner also possesses internal diversity. Her emphasis on the internal is key: while she identifies as Christian, she says “it would be difficult to substantiate the claim that my understanding of the world and the shape of my experience within that world is singularly informed by that [Christian] community.” Referring to the “dynamic intersection of identity categories,” she writes: “[I]f identity categories were separable, the multiple factors of our identity would not impact one another and our social location would not matter.” Further: “There is no ‘Christian’ identity, only Christian identities impacted by race, gender, class, ethnicity, profession, and so on.” Hill Fletcher goes so far as to state that it is important to conceptualize “identity as a verb,” and to understand that “self is contingent and negotiated.”  Naturally, she extends this analysis to any member of any religion. She also cites Morwenna Griffiths on the myth of homogeneity or “purity”: “The acceptance of fragmentation is the relinquishing of an inappropriate dream of purity, as well as a relinquishing of the wish for the unity of the subject.” 

            Hill Fletcher extends these ideas into the field of dialog by urging us to recognize that other traditions and their practitioners equally possess diversity: “Thinking about our religious identities as socially constructed and formed in conversation with multiple communities is a new resource for enacting solidarity across religious differences.” She adds the powerful point that understanding religions as “communities of internal diversity allows for the partial identification of overlapping identities where a variety of features hold the potential for making connections.” She also avers that this approach to outreach, to enriching our understanding of another, reveals the radical complexity of authentic dialog wherein the dream of there being an “unchanging core” (her words) on either side is released. She quotes Iain Chambers on the vital need to preserve the natural ambiguity involved: “To hold onto the uncertainties of this mutual interrogation is imperative. Otherwise, my desire continues to reproduce the cycles of hegemony that subject the other to my categories, to my need for identity.” Hill Fletcher emphasizes that in encountering the other as truly other, “we cannot say in advance what ‘Christian thought’ says about him or her. Instead, we remain open to the newness of each meeting, relinquishing the possibility of a controlling knowledge.” Reified preconceptions of what Buddhist or Christian thought means, she writes, “are shattered by actual conversations between particular Buddhists and particular Christians whose own understanding and interpretations… of their tradition varies widely.”

            Finally, Hill Fletcher moves beautifully from discussions of encounter and dialog to the issue of dual practice. She writes: “If one thinks with the concept of Christian identity, the hybridity of syncretism is seen as compromising Christian identity. But considering syncretism from the perspective of those who practice it would suggest a more positive assessment… [wherein] we are encouraged to see the boundaries of categorization as permeable, rather than clearly delineated.” Naturally, this logic equally applies to Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish and other perspectives.

            For those familiar with Buddhist thought on the constructed nature of all forms of identity, Hill Fletcher’s exhortations are strikingly resonant with Buddhist-like critiques of “essentialism.” Whether she has consciously employed Buddhist insights, I cannot say. But either way, her analyses remain powerfully suggestive of skillful ways to approach our engagement with other selves and other traditions.