Mysticism, Buddhist and Christian: Encounters With Jan Van Ruusbroec
Reviewed by Rik Van Nieuwenhove
Modern Theology
Vol.13 No.4 (Oct 1997)
pp.547-548
COPYRIGHT 1997 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. (UK)
Jan Van Ruusbroec (1293-1381)is without doubt one of the most
radical trinitarian spiritual writers of the medieval period.
However, his thought is not as well-known in the English speaking
world as it deserves to be (mainly because he wrote only in the
vernacular, Middle Dutch) and the first aim of the book under review
is to mend this, but interestingly enough it also tries to engage
his mysticism critically in dialogue with Buddhist contemplation.
This gives the book a remarkable interreligious flavour, yet one
could question the compatibility of the two goals the authors set
themselves. In the context of this review I cannot do full justice
to the richness of this remarkable book, but a brief outline of its
main structure and a short appraisal will hopefully suffice to
convince the reader of its relevance for anybody interested in
Buddhist-Christian dialogue.
The book falls into three parts: in the first part the nature of
mysticism is expounded, focusing on issues such as: the question
whether Buddhism contains sufficient "mystical" elements to make a
comparison with Ruusbroec meaningful; the possible "objects" of
mystical awareness (nature, self, God,...); the characteristics of
the mystical experience (unity, passivity, immediacy, "annihilation"
of the self, ...) and an investigation into whether these apply to
Buddhism. It is worth observing that the authors argue that in a
sense, Buddhism can be called "essentially mystical, while
christianity cannot": for the Christian, faith and charity suffice
for salvation, while the Buddhist needs enlightenment. (p. 80)
Ruusbroec's anthropology is outlined in Part Two (Ch. 5). A
so-called "phenomenological" exposition of the mystical experience
according to Ruusbroec (Ch. 7 and 8) is contrasted with the Buddhist
view of man and the union with the transcedent self (Ch. 6 and 9).
In Part Three the authors investigate whether Ruusbroec's
impassioned criticism of the theories of the medieval natural
contemplatives and their quietist practices, which at first sight
seem so reminiscent of Eastern mystical speculation, bears on
Buddhism. It is here that the authors come up with their most
interesting conclusions.
The authors are well qualified to engage in this Christian-Buddhist
dialogue: Paul Mommaers is one of the world's leading authorities on
Ruusbroec, while Jan Van Bragt, former director of the Nanzan
Institute for Religion and Culture in Nagoya, has been engaged for
more than thirty years with Buddhist spiritually.
However much I sympathise with the objectives of interreligious
dialogue, I do not think that Mommaers has fully succeeded in
attaining the first aim of the book. As indicated earlier, Ruusbroec
is on of the most radical trinitarian thinkers in the West, but the
reader is not even allowed a glimpse of his trinitarian doctrine.
This is because Mommaers' approach is "phenomenological": the book
is permeated by the presupposition, based on W. James's The
Varieties of Religious Experience, that one can fruitfully
investigate religious experiences apart from their broader doctrinal
and theological context. I believe this is a very doubtful position,
and it does little justice to Ruusbroec's doctrine. an example will
clarify this point.
According to Ruusbroec, the divine Persons do not only "go out" (the
processions of Son and Spirit) but they also flow back into the
divine unity where they "rest" in enjoyment. Thus, the divinity is
characterised on the one hand, by movement and activity (in the
Persons), and rest and enjoyment (in their shared unity or essence)
on the other. This idea of divine regiratio is strikingly original
to Ruusbroec and the resulting concept of God is an extraordinary
dynamic one. Ruusbroec's main point is that the mature mystic can
participate in this intratrinitarian life: he will "go out" towards
his fellow man (active life), be drawn into the divine unity
(interior life), enjoy the divine essence (contemplative life), and
so on, in an ever-deepening spiral development of the spiritual
life. The mystic who has attained this ideal (the so-called "Common
Life" will lead a life of virtuous activity while remaining united
with God, and a life contemplation while performing good works in
the world: "activity" and "rest" are perfectly integrated.
It is correct that the realisation of this goal involves a
transformation of the human person and his faculties and I gladly
acknowledge that Mommaers' fascinating exposition of this process
(Ch. 5 and 8) is unrivalled. I regret however, that he fails to make
clear, due to his methodological presuppositions and, presumably,
the limitations inherent in interreligious dialogue, that
(Ruusbroec's description of) the mystical experience is shaped by
his trinitarian thought and cannot be justly elucidated apart from
it. If anything, this point will have made clear that the authors do
not entirely succeed in expounding Ruusbroec's thought in its
fullness.
I will refrain from arguing that I find the characterisation of
Buddhism as a religion -- too broadly defined as "the belief that
there is something supranatural (a Transcedent); that the natural
situation of humanity is not the right one; and that the right
situation can only be obtained by a new relationship to the
Transcedent" (p. 71) -- unconvicing, nor will I criticise the bleak
definition of grace ("a factor in the process of contemplation and
liberation that is not reducible to the efforts of the individual
person" [p. 234]), for the authors are sensitively aware of the
divergence between the two traditions (Ch. 9) and make no attempt to
smooth over the dissimilarities between them: "while Buddhism is a
religion of liberation by unifying wisdom, Christianity is a
religion of salvation by a believing and loving relationship with a
transcedent and saving God" (p. 188-189).
Is there more to be gained from the interreligious dialogue than a
mere observation of blatant divergence? In Part III the authors
convincingly argue that there is. Here we learn that Ruusbroec's
severe criticism of natural mysticism as it was practiced in his own
time by the "Brethren of the Free Spirit", disparaging of virtuous
activity and aiming merely after inner, solipsistic enlightenment,
does not apply to the Buddhist path lived in its fullness, although
its theory taken in isolation from its practice has its in-built
limitations (like every particular religious thought), that make it
vulnerable to the deviations indicated by Ruusbroec (Ch. 13). Thus,
at least some Eastern voices join chorus with their Christian
counterparts in rejecting quietism and solipsistic enlightenment
that fails to translate itself in good works. And that in itself is
an important observation.