Customer Reviews

The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(35)

 

 

The author attempts to be fair AND to communicate his own view, his own conclusions. This means the book is a short vehicle to present some of his own understanding of the differences between Jesus and Buddha, and to show you his view, his side on the question of how to evaluate Jesus or Buddha.

Some would attempt to be fair and withold their own conclusion if it should be on one side or another, but his point is to respectfully present his side, to SHOW what's going on in his understanding when he looks at Buddhism and Christianity, the claims, the culture, the founders, the sorrows of human life.

It succeeds where other attempts might fail, in that it is not heavy handed and given the short space he does attempt to fairly express views other than his own.

The dialog does not sound stylistically like either the Jesus in various Gospels nor Buddha in various Sutras. It is interesting when Jesus says something that sounds like it is very much along the lines of what might be said in Buddhist lingo, and vice versa when the Buddha says something that relates to things often said in Christian lingo.

It is thought-provoking whatever one's view, and it is clear enough that the author is primarily trying to show his own understanding of Jesus Christianity in contrast to his understanding of Buddhism through his travels in Buddhist cultures and remembering his childhood in India.

It cannot go into too much depth on some things, that isn't unfair it's just a hazard of such a subject, particularly in a short book. But the complexities or critiques that could be made, can open up an interesting discussion, so this book does serve as a discussion-starter, and it does raise some challenges very well, whatever one's view on Buddhism vis-a-vis Christianity.

Is it Christian Apologetic? Yes and no, depending on what you mean or expect by 'Christian Apologetics' -- it is not a heavy-handed comparison or disection of Buddhism like you would find in a truly theological journal, despite raising deeply theological issues, nor is it vague or superficial as Lee Stoebel's work is, despite the popular format and casual style. If it is said to be Apologetics, then it is Apologetic simply in that it presents a Christian Author's reflections and does not attempt to hide his specifically Christian conclusions, from his own understanding of Christianity.

While it raises challenges to Buddhism and endorses Christianity, it does not demonize Buddhism nor does it ignore or minimize challenges to the actions and attitudes of Christian followers. It presents enough about Buddhism (the 4 noble truths, ideas of no-self, some things about Buddhsit culture, etc) to serve as a starting point for further discussion, and if people informed by Buddhism engage in that discussion, with Christians, then the result will in fact lead to greater understanding and depth of thought, for many people, and these are good things.

Does it succeed? This is why it isn't like the sort of Apologetics one finds elsewhere... it isn't pretending to defeat Buddhism, I don't think it is trying to, I think it is exploring differences in a way that highlights and affirms what the author sees as strengths in Christianity and the importance of Jesus. It is more like the inobtrusive evangelism that demonstrates by example: not demonizing others, not lecturing others, but living and speaking in accord with one's spirituality.

As a Gnostic with interest in Christianity, Buddhism, and various Christian 'heresies', I found the book to be very good.

I was born and raised to two lefty quasi-Buddhist parents that indoctrinated me with the philosophical pap that passes for Buddhism in the West.

A woman I met on an airplane handed me this book to look at and, at first glance, I scoffed at it but the woman was very gracious and I assured her that I would peruse it later...

Now, I am a born-again Christian and this book was the first step I took in that direction.

Some of the criticisms I have read on this site are valid, as Zacharias does not provide an all-encompassing refutation in this small work--but I don't think he was meaning to (its only like 100 pages), simply giving someone (perhaps like myself) their first critical glance at the Buddhist faith/philosophy and exploring some of the difficult implications that most Buddhists either ignore or suppress.

No, this book does not bring down the hammer and utterly refute Buddhism--but it can be used as an introduction to the ways of Buddhism and how they pale before the Ways of The Master.

Prior to this I was a huge Ravi Zacharias fan. I found in him a voice that was not afraid to tackle some of the biggest problems in theology. I was extremely disapointed with this book. Its a very quick read, which is its first major flaw. However, I was shocked at some of the glaring liberties Zacharias takes to generalize Buddhism for the sake of defending Christianity. In fact, the entire premise of his book is faulty as any Buddhist will tell you Guatama Buddha has little to do with the religion of Buddhism. Refer to any beginners text on the subject of Buddhism and you will find that "Buddha" is never used in a specific sense to signify a single person in time (Guatama for example) as Christians use the word "Jesus Christ". "Buddha", literally means "enlightened one" and is rarely, if ever, deduced to mean Guatama, the Buddha (notice it is "the" Buddha--Guatama was one of many--not even the first for that matter!). Beyond this, Zacharias fails to recognize that there are thousands of sects of Buddhism, many of which are vastly different theologically from the teachings he uses to frame Buddhism.
Please do not misunderstand. I do respect Dr Zacharias. However, he commits many gross errors and provides the reader with no real understanding of the nature of Buddhism. I worked in a Christian Bookstore for close to two years and know first hadn that much Christian literature on other religions is "filtered" and simplified to the point where the religion being denounced loses all verility. If you are a Christian and you are reading this try to see it from the other side: imagine a Buddhist writing a book about why Christianity is wrong using a conversation between A (note, "a") Buddha, and the pope--where only the rules of Catholicism are debated....or if you are a catholic imagine a book which defends Christianity from a Pentecostal, or Baptist, or Lutheran perspective. Its unfair and oversimplified.

"The Lotus and the Cross" has an interesting premise-an imaginary dialogue between Jesus Christ and the Buddha. Evangelical missionary Ravi Zacharias gives their debate a context--they're with Priya,a dying prostitute. Both offer salvation, albeit different kinds. While the premise is a thought-provoking one (and the reason this gets 3 stars instead of 2),it doesn't quite work in the execution.

Jesus spouts aphorisms--and they're mainly from Paul's epistles. Jesus comes across as sappy, patronizing, and condescending. Like the schoolyard bully, He does everything to make Buddha look bad. His theology consists of, "Neener, neener, neener." The Buddha doesn't look much better. He isn't compassionate to Priya's plight, and is basically the negative arrogant nihilist- like those wannabe philosophers one meets in college.

Ravi Zacharias knows the Christian scriptures well- Jesus sounds like a tract- but it's painfully clear that he hasn't studied Buddhism. Buddhism is complex. The Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana schools have different views of nirvana, the bodhisattva, rebirth, etc. In Tibetan Buddhist monasteries, philosophical debates are part of the daily routine. "The Lotus and the Cross" lacks such intellectual rigor. In "Lotus and the Cross",Jesus and the Buddha talk at each other, not to each other. It's not a dialogue. There's a lack of mutual respect. Zacharias' inability to intellectually engage with Buddhism is the book's greatest weakness. Not only does he disagree with Buddhism, but he looks down on it.
Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings and Going Home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers are simplistic in their dialogues between Christianity and Buddhism, but at least there's respect.

"Lotus and the Cross" is more of a book about the evangelical Christian view of Buddhism than a GENUINE dialogue between Christianity and Buddhism.

[Note: At the end of this review, I will provide a short list of books that more ably address both Buddhism and Christianity]

In the introduction to The Lotus and the Cross, Zacharias writes:

"[W]e dare not shrink from asking the hard questions just to avoid discomfort... One day we will all find out that being respectful and sincere does not give us the license to be wrong. Truth demands investigation and commitment. Our conclusions must be in keeping with Truth that can be tested. To be handcuffed by a lie is the worst of all imprisonments."

If we take the above quote as setting the agenda for what Zacharias wants to do in the book, then by the time we've turned the final page, we find that Zacharias has not met his goal. There are pertinent questions about the ways in which Christianity proves inadequate in addressing the issue of suffering, but Zacharias sees Christianity as the perfect answer, and so does not directly engage in the ways in which Christianity falls short (for a fuller engagement with this question see Bart Ehrman's God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer).

To begin with, there's a major question concerning his methodology. Zacharias' method in exploring Buddhism was apparently to speak to Buddhist monks and nuns, whom Zacharias does not name, so we have no idea of knowing how well-read or scholarly the Buddhists he talked to were... in fact, the reader can make no judgment whatsoever in regards to whom Zacharias talked to. The book does not include a list of works cited, and having read the book from beginning to end, it is clear that Zacharias couldn't be bothered to read any Buddhist scriptures, to say nothing of any scholarly writing, on either Buddhism or Christianity. Christians are adamant that non-Christians read Christian scriptures, it is disappointing and intellectually dishonest that Zacharias does not do Buddhists the same courtesy. As such, this book resigns itself to appealing only to those who already believe that Christianity is the only true religion (i.e. those who will only read books which reaffirm with they already believe), but for an atheist, agnostic, or Buddhist, this book falls lamentably short of an honest assessment of the claims of both religions.

In the end, oddly, the reader ends up with a completely supernatural Jesus talking to a "de-mythologized" Buddha. Zacharias seems unaware that there is such a thing as a "de-mythologized" Jesus. If you're going to view Jesus as being God himself, then to be fair, you ought to similarly portray the Buddha as he is in Buddhist scriptures: as a being who is supernatural, who has reached a state that is beyond heavens and hells and gods and men. It may surprise you to know this, but if you read the Buddhist scriptures, the Buddha is every bit as supernatural (he is referred to as "a teacher of gods and men") and charismatic as Jesus is in the gospels. Like Jesus, the Buddha was able to speak to each person according to what they needed to hear. The fact that Zacharias portrays Jesus this way, and not the Buddha, is evidence of the fact that Zacharias is unfamiliar with the source materials. Zacharias is getting secondhand information, he's not directly engaged with the material firsthand. A better approach would have been for Zacharias to collaborate with a Buddhist writer, each writer speaking on behalf of their respective religious founders. Zacharias is a pretty big name, fairly famous, I'm sure he could have gotten Gil Fronsdal, Rev. Heng Sure, or maybe even Ajahn Brahm to collaborate with him. Then you might have had an accurate engagement between the two religions.

In the suttas, whenever the Buddha explains something to someone, it is usually followed by the statement "As if someone were to set upright what had been knocked down, or reveal what had been hidden, or point out the way to someone who was lost, or hold a lamp up in the dark so that those with eyes could see--just so the Blessed One has made the Truth clear in various ways."

If Zacharias' portrayal of the Buddha was accurate, I would be dumbfounded as to why Buddhism survived for even a day, much less 2500 years. But, as the Cambodian monk Maha Ghosananda once said, "The Dharma is visible here and now. It is always in the present, the omnipresent. The Dharma is timeless. It offers results at once. Come and experience it for yourself. The Dharma will bring you to nirvana right here and now. Step by step, moment by moment, it is comprehensible and can be understood by anyone." Buddhism would not have survived for 2500 years if it didn't work. To say nothing of the fact that Buddhist scriptures are the most beautiful scriptures I have ever read in any religion.

I could go on and on and point for point, but instead I'm just going to point you to some better books on this topic.

If you are looking to "disprove" Buddhism, then I suggest you read Donald S. Lopez's book Buddhism and Science: A Guide for the Perplexed (Buddhism and Modernity).

If you would like to "disprove" Christianity, and, as Zacharias says "not shrink from asking the hard questions," (which Ravi Zacharias fails to do in this book in regards to his own religion) the best book on this subject is Bart Ehrman's book God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer. You might also read his book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

If you're looking to read books on an actual dialogue between Christianity and Buddhism, the following should more than suffice:

Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings (Marcus Borg's translations are a bit out of date, so you might want to supplement this book with Anne Bancroft's book The Pocket Buddha Reader).
Living Buddha, Living Christ (get the abridged audiobook read by Ben Kingsley)
The Energy of Prayer: How to Deepen Your Spiritual Practice
Christ and the Bodhisattva (SUNY Series in Buddhist Studies) (out-of-print, but an excellent scholarly dialogue on the two religions, hopefully your local library has a copy)
Benedict's Dharma: Buddhists Reflect on the Rule of Saint Benedict


And if you're looking to be convinced of Buddhism, I'd recommend Glenn Wallis' Basic Teachings of the Buddha (Modern Library Classics).

First of all, it is naive to think that a book with less than 90 pages of actual text could be a genuine discussion about the differences and similarities in Buddhism and Christianity. While the idea of writing a fiction dialogue between Jesus and Buddha would seem to be an interesting work, "The Lotus and the Cross" is insignificant. The Jesus in this ficticious work just seems to talk over Buddha rather than engaging in conversation.

The story is based around Jesus and Buddha taking a boat ride with a young women near the end of her life. While the intention seems to be a dialogue between the two, Jesus dominates the conversation. During some of these periods, the woman and her situation are largely forgotten.

As an alternative, I found the book "The Good Heart" by The Dalai Lama to be a more appropriate work. This book seemed to give equal time to each view while being more respectful of each. Obviously, a comparative study of Christianity and Buddhism must be thorough to be objective. To do so would create a lengthy book. I could not endorse "The Lotus and the Cross" to even begin the path of comparison.

I loved the style of this book. Throughout the whole book, I got the sense that I was really there in the boat with Priya as she had the privilege to discuss her life between two great minds. I liked how Mr. Zacharias used her as an example for several reasons:

1. Her position as a prostitute is considered a lowly occupation, no matter what class or cultural background a person comes from.

2. When she contracted her illness, a incurable one at that, she lashed out at the people surrounding her because she was in pain and wanted to share it in a negative form. We, in one aspect or another, all do that.

3. Her life was a downward spiral of pain and suffering. How can we not all identify with that in one aspect or another? We may not be prostitutes but our lives can somehow spin downward. We lose our jobs, homes, family, kids, property, etc.

Priya was "us".

As she has this conversation with these two great men, Jesus and Buddha, she represents what each of us would like to do-ask God to explain the reason for this life.

The conversation between Jesus and Buddha is polite and courteous, thought provoking and full of respect for each other. Not at one time, did I belive that they were attacking each other. Mr. Zacharias did a fine job in expounding one what Buddha taught and contrasting them well.

Jesus would say, the cause of suffering is walking away from God. Buddha said the cause of suffering is personal desire. Jesus says, "I come that you might have life and have it more abundantly." Buddha would say "You must reach Nirvana, the exstinguishment of the self and there will be no more suffering." Which of these worldviews are correct with Priya standing in the middle of them? Read the book and judge for yourselves.

For me, I have learned that I cannot depend on myself for godhood. It's just so much more easier to put my life in the care of someone who can control everything. I don't have to walk this life alone. I trust Him implicitly to take care of things for me. I don't want to do it all nor do I have the desire to do it. I get tired, I get sad and depressed. I make mistakes and I'm not always on my best behavior. Thankfully, Jesus understands this and says to me, "Cast all your cares on me, because I care for you." Reader, it just feels so good to let Him handle it. My life is not mine but His and I'd rather have it that way. (Got carried away here but I hope someone understands what I'm saying.)

I bought this book based on what seemed to be an intriguing premise. My first disappointment was when I found it to be barely longer than a pamphlet, and with every other page at that devoted to a graphic pull quote celebrating the virtues of Christianity.

Indeed this is nothing more than a Christian outreach pamphlet in which the Buddha is set up as a shallow, self-doubting straw man, easily cowed by a Jesus that comes across as pedantic and arrogant. Buddhist philosophy is invoked with a superficial dismissiveness just long enough to be shot down with an argument that boils down to "Jesus is magic."

I have no problem with the format of a Jesus-Buddha dialogue, and I think there are actually some germs of wisdom in this book's argument (Jesus as a personal God that walks with a prostitute, as opposed to Buddhist monks so mired in legalistic rituals that cannot touch her, for example). However, I find that the author is either too biased or lacks the intellectual chops (at least in Buddhism) to take this on.

I would love to see this same book appear, with the same title, as a much longer and more exhaustive work co-authored by Ravi Zacharias and a genuine Buddhist scholar/devotee. As for the present volume, I tossed it in the bin.

As September 11th shows, we are not one world, and these types of books can help open our mind. Dr. Z's expertise comes from who he is--an Indian who emigrated to Canada, then to the United states. So he is really capable because he is an amphibian: both Eastern and Western, Hindu and Christian.

He follows the Platonic pattern of not selling a syllogism, but designing a dialogue to illustrate an idea. This is a hypothetical qudrologue involving Jesus and Buddha as they discuss and talk with a young prostitute about why she is dying of AIDS. Hardball questions with hardball answers.

I am impressed with the amount of research Dr. Z put into this book--hours and hours of interviews with Buddhist monks in Malaysia, Thailand, India, and Singapore. That may be why so many people don't like the book: Dr, Z is discussing real Buddhism, not the watered down, Americanized Buddhism that is more a combination of Star Trek and Hallmark than anything that the Buddha ever taught.

The book is small, with an unimposing 94 pages and is 6" X 6", so it can be read in one setting. The cover and illustrations are soft and inviting, much like any "Deep thoughts" book. The binding has held up to my rough handling.

This book will not satisfy everyone, since it deals with very hard and sensitive issues, very personal issues, but I hope that quote-unquote sensitivity is not a cop out from thought and a well-meaning calm discussion. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and it is an odd thing not to see my religion criticized, but I have never backed down from a free and honest discussion. In fact, if religion cannot stand up to hardball and slicing questions, then it is as Gov. Jesse Ventura has said, just "a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers."

If reincarnation is a type of punishment and if we, when made perfect cease to be reborn into this world why were we born into this world in the first place? (assuming there had to be a first birth) For what sin were we paying for in our first birth? And if all religions are the same why did Buddha reject Hinduism?

I used to follow Zen before I made a committment to follow Christ. One thing which suprised me was that I met Christians who knew more about Zen than I did.

The point being this. Sometimes you can see things more clearly from the outside than from the inside. When I was involved in Zen I was so focused on those things which were true I was unable to see all that which was false.

There are serious deficiences with Buddhism. It does no good pretending that they are not there. There are some very real differences between what Christ taught and what Buddha taught.

Blindness is characterized by an inability to make distinctions. Distinctions are imporant whether we are trying to understand different concepts or different religions. Teachings about what is right and what is wrong, why people suffer and how one is to please God (if that is their goal) or be saved make a real difference in how people live their lives. Lets be adult enough to admit that different beliefs amount to real differences in how we live and relate to others.

Some, because they cannot see important distinctions, think that there are none. Don't be led by those who are blind.

Read the book for yourself.