Reading Jesus’ Transfiguration and the Buddha’s Enlightenment: Supercessionism or Synthesis?

In the story of the historical Buddha, Siddhartha attains a place of enlightenment after intensely meditating under a Bodi tree. Achieving this new level of consciousness about life and the goal of humanity to untangle itself from suffering (dukkha), we find Buddha Siddhartha delivering his teaching to Indra and Brahma.

In the story of the historical Jesus told in the synoptic gospels, he takes his followers with him to the base of a mountain where they observe his miraculous transfiguration. His body illuminates with bright rays of light and the three disciples observe the appearances of Moses and Elijah.

What do both of these stories have in common? Certainly we don’t know the motivations of the writers, but both seem to have apologetic value for their authors. In both accounts, the old gods (Indra and Brahma of the Hindus) and the old harbingers of tradition (Moses and Elijah) are giving their stamps of approval to the newcomer (the Buddha and Jesus).

One way to read the stories is as examples of Supercessionism.

Supercessionism is the theological term used for the belief that the value of the old tradition can only be understood, fulfilled, or accomplished in the new tradition. Both of these stories then show that Jesus and the Buddha are teaching their respective “teachers.” It is the passing of a mantle from old to new, the inauguration of a new type of understanding, a new prophet, a new god, a new king. In any case, Supercessionism is held suspect by those outside the new tradition because it tends to invalidate the ongoing validity of the old tradition. The new tradition is thought to correct something about the old tradition, whether it be its theological content, its trajectory, its audience, etc.

Another way to read the stories is as examples of Synthesis (a term that is replacing the more traditional use of Syncretism)

This is a rather new approach in terms of theological approaches, but suggests itself as one possibility in the reorientation of pluralists and perennialists in our age of common religious interests. On this view, there is no new or old tradition, it is simply the continuation of the old tradition. To demonstrate this, its radical departure in both cases from the old tradition can be explained by the evolutions in the old tradition as part of its very makeup. One might point for example in Judaism to the move from Deuteronomic Law to Wisdom teachings which suggested the introduction of foreign elements. One might suggest that Kabbala as a substantive Jewish movement was influenced by its encounter with Christianity as a result of its strong delineation of heaven and hell and its emanation theology. In this way, the old tradition is “reverse engineered” to accommodate the new and also shows a symbiotic relationship that forms over time. We can see this in less radical attempts to find “the historical Jesus in his Jewish context” by scholars of the last century. Others would claim that in Buddhism we see the veneration of the Hindu deities redefined as bodhisattvas rather than gods. In these redefinitions, the break to redefine oneselves is better understood as a corrective whose sole attempt is not to leave its predecessor behind, but to integrate this knowledge as something recovered that was lost, rather than something completely new, foreign, or uncomfortable. 

In both cases, the Buddha and Jesus inhabited lands, cultural contexts, and a social conscience of a people who could identify them by their behaviors within the tradition. Even if they were saying things that caught them by surprise, the people could claim them as their own. Their languages, concepts, and ideas were not so abusive as to be jettisoned from dialogue with the religious teachers of their time. In many cases, the people recognizing them were not put off by the foreign nature of their agencies. This is an important point and worth considering.