Artificial intelligence (AI) is already a visible presence in the Buddhist world, from software applications to robotic monks. In East Asia especially, lay and monastic practitioners have pragmatically embraced artificial intelligence. Yet, compared with other religious traditions and cultural spheres, the relationship between Buddhism and AI is still in its infancy. For now, Buddhists mostly use AI as end-users, letting it influence their study and spiritual cultivation; far less effort has gone into shaping AI itself to reflect distinctly “Buddhist characteristics.” Such a shift could significantly affect the global development and governance of artificial intelligence.
Scholars such as Danit Gal have argued that East Asian users are increasingly approaching AI as a partner rather than a mere instrument. Japan has been the earliest and most consistent in treating AI as a partner, even imagining a society fundamentally organized around robotics. China comes next, with an increasing number of efforts to establish emotional relationships with “partner AI.” When this trend is reframed within the context of Buddhist communities and spiritual practice, it raises a key question: is AI understood as an upāya—literally “skillful means,” a method or strategy for attaining certain goals—or as a kalyāṇamitra, the “virtuous friend,” an ideal partner that nurtures spiritual growth, guiding practitioners along the path toward enlightenment? In China, the robot-monk Xian’er was developed as an upāya to attract more visitors to the temple and to convert Buddhism to the modernized world. At the same time, several young practitioners have interacted with Xian’er—conversing and even practicing with him virtually—thus making him, in certain respects, a reference point, a kalyāṇamitra.
A first question is whether artificial intelligence can genuinely function as a kalyāṇamitra. Several perspectives suggest that it can; Masahiro Mori maintains that Buddha-nature pervades all entities, including AI; and Robert Geraci argues that “spiritual robots” could serve as effective substitutes for humans in religious and spiritual domains, insofar as they are imagined as purified of humanness.
A second question is why we might need a kalyāṇamitra in an AI format. Presumably, we turn to such a form for the same reasons we use bots in other areas of our lives: we seek “superhuman” partners to participate in our ordinary human relationships. Yet can a kalyāṇamitra in an AI format truly be preferable to traditional Bodhisattvas as spiritual friends and mentors? Why replace the silent, mysterious connections with non-physical Bodhisattvas with a more tangible, experiential, and seemingly controllable connection with AI entities? More broadly, what does this shift imply for the nature of spiritual intimacy?
