Now we can find attempts to associate the Buddhist concept of the "three bodies of the Buddha" and the Christian idea of the Trinity. However, we have to state the fundamental difference between these concepts, as "Trikaya", speaking the language of theistic philosophies, is by nature more like a cosmological system, whereas the Trinity idea clarifies the internal structure of the supercosmical level – of an uncreated existence of a personal transcendent God. In this article we present a comparative analysis of the structure and content of the Eastern Christian (Orthodox) Christology and of the theory of the "three bodies of the Buddha". In this case, our attention is drawn preeminently to the Orthodox and not Catholic or Protestant Christology, because, obviously, this is a new experience in a scientific comparison of religions. You can also assume that Eastern Christianity is more similar to the Mahayana (Mahāyāna Buddhism) according to the degree of mysticism, than Western Christianity (in its most classical samples), whereas the religious experience of Western Christianity is more streamlined in comparison with authentic religious experience that occurred at the base of the Eastern theology. For example, for some of neoprotestants the concept "the Church is the Body of Christ" is just a beautiful metaphor, whereas for Eastern Christianity this statement is ontological, it points to the objective reality of the mystical order, which is in some sense more genuine in comparison with ordinary, empirical reality. Catholic ecclesiology, from the point of view of Orthodox theologians, is too streamlined.
       In the beginning, let’s focus on the similarities of Orthodox Christology and of the concept of Trikaya. Firstly, at a conceptual level, Orthodox Christians and supporters of Trikaya specificate of their religious founders three ways of their being, dimensions of their manifest, expanding, abidance, presence.
        In the concept of Trikaya is postulated the presence of "Dharmakaya", "Vadjrakaya" or Body of Dharma, which is understood as a Supreme absolute, essense, diamond Body of the Buddha (of all Buddhas), the Buddha-Absolute. This is the perfect nature, the true nature of the universe and at the same time, a single existential principle, which involved all the Buddhas at the same time, identical through the unity of the Dharma-Kaya. It may seem that this absolute Body is similar to a supertemporal, eternal, divine, absolute being of Christ as the word of God and to His cosmic significance. The Divine Logos, as you know, is a gage of logosical structure of the world, i.e. of its semantic content, its sense of authenticity. He is "a creative cause" of the world, responsible for its real structure and the real wealth of its existence, expressed in the diversity of the universal forms.
      "Sambhogakaya" is a medium Body, created by the merits of the Buddha, which is his perfections, enjoying communication with higher bodhisattvas. It may seem that this Body is similar to the Body of Christ after the Resurrection and the Ascension, who is seated “at the right hand of the Father”, while maintaining a clear distinction with His divine essence. At the same time, Christ is the Foundation of the Church in which believers enter into fellowship with Christ through the Eucharist. Unlike the absolute nature of the Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya is the "dependent nature". Similarly, in the Christian doctrine, the perfection of the divine nature of Christ is different from the perfections of his resurrected and ecclesiological Body.
      "Nirmanakaya" is an "illusory Body", the manifestation of the Buddha in the physical, mundane, phenomenal, limited human Body. This is an earthly Buddha, who temporarily comes for preaching. It may seem that this Body is similar to the earthly, visible and sensual Body of Christ before the Resurrection, which He received from the Virgin Mary, and which bore the consequence of the transgression of the first parents. Of course, the similarity of views on "the illusory nature of" Buddha with Christian Docetism and Gnosticism of the first centuries should be noted.
       Secondly, let’s note the similarity at the conceptual and terminological level. Generally, the word "body" in everyday life and in Christian use (both in Russian and in English) doesn't always mean biological flesh. We say, for example, "geometric body", just pointing to some sort of integrity or existence without a substantive content. In the Epistles of Paul the Apostle, the concept "Body of Christ" points to the mystical way of being Church, which is understood as the fullness of the real presence of God with the believers in Him. In Col. 1:18, Christ is spoken of as the Head of the Body of the Church" ("σώματος τῆς ἐκκλησίας" / "corporis ecclesiae"), and in verse 19 we can see a correlation between the concepts "Body of Christ" and "completeness" ("πλήρωμα"). Similarly, the Buddhists speak of the Bodies of the Buddha as of modes of being.
        Thirdly, it is necessary to note one historical coincidence. The concept of Trikaya born in the 3rd century BC and in its final version is issued to 3-4 century A. D. During the 2nd and 3rd centuries A. D., a gnostic Docetism, reminiscent of the "Nirmanakaya", develops in a Christian environment
       Now let’s turn to the presentation of conceptual differences.
1) The ideological content of Orthodox Christology from the very beginning is a hard conceptual monolith, despite of various historical (in particular, terminology) conflicts. The concept of Trikaya appeared only at a certain stage of development of Buddhist thought, has undergone substantial development and has received a different interpretation depending on the direction of the particular Buddhist school (for example, there were concepts of 2 and even 4 bodies of the Buddha). Already authors of the New Testament, based on the interpretation of the prophecies and symbols of the Old Testament, give a trine development of the being of Christ, which we have already mentioned. According to some researchers, the concept of Trikaya is the pullback of Buddhism to the conceptual structure of the Atman-Brahman, which he once denied in Brahmanic philosophy.
      2) In the concept of Trikaya we see the primacy of the impersonal interpretation over the personal one, in contrast to the Christian doctrine about God. Unlike Sambhogakaya, Dharmakaya is a sphere without forms, not comprehensible through the mind and sense. Communication, compassion, conversion to living beings is only possible from outside of Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya. The personal mode of existence in the Buddhist understanding is not an ontological first principle, but rather a result of the activity, a result of the manifest of impersonal components or discrete process. Orthodoxy does the opposite emphasis: Hypostasis in the Trinity as Persons (the divine Logos inter alia) are not reducible to the divine essence or to the essence of the universe. The Logos is an Hypostasis or a Person performing an important cosmical function, but at the same time, the Logos as such cannot be reduced to an impersonal authenticity of things, to be identified with a cosmical function, an impersonal attribute or a manifestation of the Absolute. It is also important to understand that Orthodox Christians do not post the Logos and the Holy Spirit according to the degree of perfection on "the floor below" in comparison with the Father, whereas the concept of Trikaya involves a hierarchy of bodies of a Buddha according to the degree of their perfection. At the level of the body of Dharma all differences disappear, as the discriminating ability of consciousness. In Orthodoxy, the distinction between the Persons in the Trinity is understood as a fundamental and fatal one. The difference as such (not clouded by sin and fragmentation) in this case is a good and an authenticity of existence. If there is no communication in Dharmakaya, there is always a mysterious communion of Persons in the Trinity.
      3) Orthodox Christians cannot accept the pantheistic ratio of the cosmos and the Absolute in the concept of Trikaya. Orthodox cosmology does not allow the merging with an absolute being to the nothingness. A man in this case cannot become a bearer of the divine essence as the divine Logos is. Christians understand the man as an image of God, not as a potential possessor of the divine nature. Christian cosmology explains when the inferiority was introduced in the phenomenal world, whereas the Buddhist concept of the world believes the Samsara as beginningless.
       4) At the level of anthropology and soteriology, Orthodox Christianity admits judgments of the fact that man is created in the image of Christ, that he should be Christlike in his life and should really be intimately connected with Christ. At the same time, the logic of Trikaya is not valid for Orthodox Christians, according to which a Christian must be viewed as a carrier of the highest divine essence, like the founder of his religious tradition. The Apostle Peter speaks of the need to become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), but not bearers of the divine nature. Moreover, we can say that in the Dharmakaya the Buddhas are attached to the nothingness, whereas in unity with Christ the man retains his uniqueness eternal and indestructible. It is worth noting that Buddhism and Christianity are combined by the aspiration to overcome their “ego” and pride. However, Christians will not agree with the radical statements of the Buddhists that the man needs to be aware of the lack of the ontological "I". Christians kill the "I" in an amartological sense, i.e. they destroy a haughty self-image. The Apostle Paul says: "...I no longer live, but Christ lives in me" (Gal. 2:20). However, we cannot understand this statement as referring to the destruction of personality. In Rev. 3: 20 we read: "Behold, at the door and knock: if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and sup with him, and he with Me." The model of communication of Christ with the person of the man in the heart, of course, does not match the model of staying in Dharmakaya.
      5) In the approval of the Nirmanakaya, Christians can hear an invalid Docetism. We have to tell about a totally negative attitude of the Buddhists to the empirical, phenomenal existence, whereas, from the point of view of Christian cosmology, the phenomenal world is good as itself.
       6) The Christianity professes a historical uniqueness of the appearance of Christ in this world, whereas appearances of the Buddhas in Nirmanakaya are repeatable.
      7) The Buddha being in beatitude, is superhistorical, on the one hand (if history is understood as an empirical course of the sensible world), and on the other hand, he is in the world of addiction. Christ remains with his believers in the Church after His Ascension until the end of time, really establishing the Church inside of our history, at the same time preserving its superhistorical character, which is manifested in nonsusceptibility of changes of the outside world. In this case, we have also to note the difference in the understanding of the beatitude, of the mission of staying of the Buddha and Christ and of the path to enlightenment.
     8) It is worth noting that substantial discourse is characteristic for classical Christian philosophy, whereas the Buddhist philosophy is known for its non-(anti-) substantial metaphysics. The existential discourse or the discourse of states of being dominates the essential one (for example, the absolute being is not understood as a substance, an object or an objectified personality, but as an excellent condition). As it is noted above, some researchers perceive Trikaya as a rollback of Buddhism to substantial metaphysics of Brahmanism and of the Upanishads. A significant proportion of substantialism in Trikaya can certainly create the impression of similarity with the Christian philosophy.
        In conclusion, let’s note that from the unity of structure of various doctrines, we cannot conclude with impendence about the unity of their conceptual content. We can assume that Christians can comprehend the concept of Trikaya as a fruit of the natural function of the human mind, which is able to distinguish the three modes of existence to the founder of the religion: 1) ontological superiority; 2) high ethical perfection; 3) empirical accessibility or openness. All three of these components can, in principle, be detected in many religious doctrines, where: 1) the absolute beginning, is, as a rule, outside the ordinary, logical-empirical experience; 2) this beginning is a real embodiment of all moral perfections; 3) this beginning, in a special way, is in the everyday sphere of life. It's also worth noting that the similarity of the concept of Trikaya and of Orthodox Christology can facilitate understanding between Buddhists and Christians.