Photo by Nick Perez on Unsplash
Buddhist Emptiness and the Christian God:
John Cobb's Historic Article on Multiple Ultimates
introduction by Jay McDaniel
Almost fifty years ago, in a pivotal article in the "Journal of the American Academy of Religion," John B. Cobb Jr. proposed that there could be multiple ultimates, and that two of them are what Buddhists call Emptiness and Christians call God.
He argued that, for centuries, Christians had sought a synthesis of these two ultimates, with the idea that God is really Being Itself. However, in modern and postmodern times, Being Itself has been deconstructed into a multitude of finite instances of relational creativity, none of them substantive but all event-like. In short Being Itself has been dissolved into Emptiness.
Cobb also contends that Emptiness is quite real and ultimate but different from what he calls "the principle of rightness" to which Christians and others have directed their worship. This principle of rightness, he suggests, is also ultimate, but in a different way.
In the historic essay, Cobb argues for the distinction and proposes that a realization of Emptiness can include an awakening to the principle of rightness, to God, such that compassion, as seen in the Bodhisattva Vow, becomes the natural response. This page reprints the abstract for his article and offers a PDF of the article itself.
*
Cobb's perspective is a challenge to Christians who want to think of God as Being Itself. It suggests that their thinking does not go far enough or deep enough. They do not yet see that God is not Being Itself but rather "a" being who, along with all other beings, are creative self-expressions of Emptiness, which is not itself a thing among things or an object to be worshipped. Understanding God as "a" being is not to say that God is located in space or time, that God has a body, or that God can be fully grasped mentally, But it is to say that God has loving aims and purposes.
Cobb's perspective also offers a unique departure from traditional Christian approaches that start with the assumption or hope that the Christian God and Buddhist Emptiness are simply two different labels for the same underlying reality. Commonly, such dialogues are predicated on the notion that God is "the" ultimate reality, and this singularity of ultimacy is often taken for granted. Cobb unsettles this conventional viewpoint by proposing a more pluralistic framework. For him, there are two ultimates, not just one: an ultimate reality (Emptiness) and an ultimate actuality (God).
This perspective not only fosters renewed dialogue and understanding between Christians and Buddhists but also invites individuals from diverse traditions to consider the possibility of various ultimate realities. It opens a gate to broader philosophical and theological explorations, encouraging a reevaluation of longstanding beliefs and the potential for interfaith learning and reflection.
He argued that, for centuries, Christians had sought a synthesis of these two ultimates, with the idea that God is really Being Itself. However, in modern and postmodern times, Being Itself has been deconstructed into a multitude of finite instances of relational creativity, none of them substantive but all event-like. In short Being Itself has been dissolved into Emptiness.
Cobb also contends that Emptiness is quite real and ultimate but different from what he calls "the principle of rightness" to which Christians and others have directed their worship. This principle of rightness, he suggests, is also ultimate, but in a different way.
In the historic essay, Cobb argues for the distinction and proposes that a realization of Emptiness can include an awakening to the principle of rightness, to God, such that compassion, as seen in the Bodhisattva Vow, becomes the natural response. This page reprints the abstract for his article and offers a PDF of the article itself.
*
Cobb's perspective is a challenge to Christians who want to think of God as Being Itself. It suggests that their thinking does not go far enough or deep enough. They do not yet see that God is not Being Itself but rather "a" being who, along with all other beings, are creative self-expressions of Emptiness, which is not itself a thing among things or an object to be worshipped. Understanding God as "a" being is not to say that God is located in space or time, that God has a body, or that God can be fully grasped mentally, But it is to say that God has loving aims and purposes.
Cobb's perspective also offers a unique departure from traditional Christian approaches that start with the assumption or hope that the Christian God and Buddhist Emptiness are simply two different labels for the same underlying reality. Commonly, such dialogues are predicated on the notion that God is "the" ultimate reality, and this singularity of ultimacy is often taken for granted. Cobb unsettles this conventional viewpoint by proposing a more pluralistic framework. For him, there are two ultimates, not just one: an ultimate reality (Emptiness) and an ultimate actuality (God).
This perspective not only fosters renewed dialogue and understanding between Christians and Buddhists but also invites individuals from diverse traditions to consider the possibility of various ultimate realities. It opens a gate to broader philosophical and theological explorations, encouraging a reevaluation of longstanding beliefs and the potential for interfaith learning and reflection.
Buddhist Emptiness and the Christian God
John B. Cobb, Jr.
Journal of the American Academy of Religion (1977)
Abstract
It is often assumed that since the ultimate is understood by Buddhists to be Emptiness and by Christians to be God, Emptiness and God must be competing interpretations or designations of the same reality. There may, instead, be diverse ultimates. The quest for the ultimate in India first led to Brahman; in the West, to Being. Buddhism dissolved Brahman into Emptiness. In this century Being has been dissolved into the being of beings or what Whitehead calls creativity. There are other traditions, especially Judaism and Confucianism which have sought the ultimate as the ground or principle of rightness. Unlike Judaism and Confucianism, Christianity stresses that true rightness can be attained only as a gift, but Christianity does not thereby turn away from the principle of rightness. On the contrary, this principle is the giver.
In both the Judeo-Christian and Confucian traditions, there have been efforts to assimilate the metaphysical ultimate to the ultimate of rightness, but the resultant syntheses have proved unstable. Nevertheless, in Christianity the idea of God was long associated with such a synthesis.
With the dissolution of the metaphysical Being into the being of beings and with the collapse of the synthesis between Being or being and the principle of rightness, the idea of God has become problematic. It is best to reaffirm its identification with the principle of rightness; for worship is directed to this.
The metaphysical ultimate is realized rather than properly worshipped. God can then be recognized as categorically distinct from being or creativity or Emptiness.
The question now is how faith in God is related to the realization of Emptiness. God can be conceived as the supreme and everlasting Empty One in distinction from Emptiness as such, thus as the one cosmic Buddha.
The realization of Emptiness is the realization of oneself as an instance of dependent co-origination or the concrescence of all things. This is often held to be beyond the distinction of good and evil, right and wrong. Nevertheless, from the perspective of the concern for rightness, the realization of Emptiness appears as a fulfilment of this principle.
This can be explained if we assume that God as the principle of rightness participates in dependent co-origination, that to be empty is to be open to each element in the concrescence playing its own proper role, and that God's proper role is to guide the concrescence. In this case, the realization of Emptiness is at the same time conformation to the principle of rightness. It may be that faith in God as conformation to the principle of rightness can also lead to the realization of Emptiness.
In both the Judeo-Christian and Confucian traditions, there have been efforts to assimilate the metaphysical ultimate to the ultimate of rightness, but the resultant syntheses have proved unstable. Nevertheless, in Christianity the idea of God was long associated with such a synthesis.
With the dissolution of the metaphysical Being into the being of beings and with the collapse of the synthesis between Being or being and the principle of rightness, the idea of God has become problematic. It is best to reaffirm its identification with the principle of rightness; for worship is directed to this.
The metaphysical ultimate is realized rather than properly worshipped. God can then be recognized as categorically distinct from being or creativity or Emptiness.
The question now is how faith in God is related to the realization of Emptiness. God can be conceived as the supreme and everlasting Empty One in distinction from Emptiness as such, thus as the one cosmic Buddha.
The realization of Emptiness is the realization of oneself as an instance of dependent co-origination or the concrescence of all things. This is often held to be beyond the distinction of good and evil, right and wrong. Nevertheless, from the perspective of the concern for rightness, the realization of Emptiness appears as a fulfilment of this principle.
This can be explained if we assume that God as the principle of rightness participates in dependent co-origination, that to be empty is to be open to each element in the concrescence playing its own proper role, and that God's proper role is to guide the concrescence. In this case, the realization of Emptiness is at the same time conformation to the principle of rightness. It may be that faith in God as conformation to the principle of rightness can also lead to the realization of Emptiness.
| john_b._cobb-buddhistemptinesschristian-1977.pdf |