What do you think?
Rate this book
Great Conversations
Loto y la Cruz, El: Jesus Conversa con Buda
SPANISH EDITION. Dr. Zacharias presents a brief but imaginative defense of the Christian faith as compared to Buddhist philosophy.
94 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 2001
127 people are currently reading
1614 people want to read
About the author
Ravi Zacharias
255 books1,657 followersFrederick Antony Ravi Kumar Zacharias was an Indian-born Canadian-American Christian evangelical minister and Christian apologist who founded Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). He was involved in Christian apologetics for a period spanning more than forty years, authoring more than thirty books. He also hosted the radio programs Let My People Think and Just Thinking. Zacharias belonged to the Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA), the Keswickian Christian denomination in which he was ordained as a minister. After his death, allegations of sexual harassment against him emerged, were investigated, and found to be true.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 185 reviews
July 29, 2014
I read this book at the urging of a friend. He figured that as an instructor of comparative and Asian religion and someone who is involved in Buddhist-Christian dialogue, I would find the book to be of interest.
I did find the book interesting, but probably not for the same reasons as my friend. Author Ravi Zacharias and many of his reviewers claim that the book is a dialogue meant to explore these two traditions, specifically how their teachings relate to the suffering of a prostitute dying of AIDS. Unfortunately, as the author makes quite clear in his introductory words, the book is not an objective look at the two traditions, or even a work of Christian apologetics, but is instead a thinly veiled polemic against the Buddhist religion from the perspective of an absolutist and exclusivist Christianity.
Let's dispel the idea once and for all that this book is somehow non-biased or objective. One reviewer asserts that Zacharias does not "unfairly tilt this conversation in Jesus' favor" due to his Christian faith, yet the author himself readily admits that his "conclusions must be in keeping with the Truth that can be tested," which is to say, the Christian gospel. He also says, when discussing the possible slant that the book could take, that "some fundamental ideas are inescapable and must be engaged." Some of these fundamental ideas are that "Jesus and Buddha cannot both be right" and that "behind the two symbols [of Christianity and Buddhism:] stand two diametrically opposed faiths" (all Zacharias' quotes here are from p.8). These ideas are assumed in the introduction—accordingly, the "dialogue" that makes up the bulk of the book merely demonstrates its author's assumptions. Zacharias is neither interested in looking at these two traditions on their own terms and in examining their commonalities as well as differences nor does he intend to create an authentic dialogue, where both parties come to the table as equals, each with wisdom to share with the other. Rather, he already knows the "Truth" about the situation, and merely stages a faux-dialogue as a way of demonstrating the assumed superiority of one religion over the other. Perhaps the reason Zacharias finds it "difficult to highlight the deep differences between Buddhism and Christianity and not bring offense" (p.7) is because he is not merely highlighting these differences, but applying an a priori value judgment to them as well. (Although the honesty in his introduction is welcome, his use of the dialogue format is disingenuous; Zacharias hopes to evoke an open, objective feeling while selectively putting words into the mouths of Jesus and the Buddha in order to support his polemical agenda.)
One also needs to address the "research" that Zacharias put into the book. According to him he spent "scores" of hours interviewing monks and teachers from different Buddhist traditions. One reviewer asserts that the "hours and hours of interviews" the author has conducted with monks from different locales afford Zacharias the opportunity to convey "real Buddhism" to the reader, as opposed to the "watered down, American Buddhism that is more a combination of Star Trek and Hallmark than anything that the Buddha ever taught" (this reviewer obviously harbored no reservations about offending!). Another reviewer argues that Zacharias' "representations of Jesus and Buddha are based on the best historical documents of their teachings, and not on modern interpretations or practices." Yet scores of hours of interviews with a handful of monks would no more convey an accurate and complete picture of Buddhism—a 2,500 year old religion with different traditions in dozens of Asian countries—than interviews with a dozen Franciscans and Cistercians would encapsulate the definitive essence of Christianity. And one must ask how these reviewers speak with such certainty of "real" or "historical" Buddhism without explaining their criteria for evaluating "real" vs. "watered-down" or "historical" vs. "modern interpretations." My guess is that "real" Buddhism comprises those elements that support Zacharias' polemic, while "watered-down" Buddhism constitutes anything that would make his case more problematic. (As well, Zacharias' account seems more "historical" because it is in line with the late 19th-century misrepresentations of Buddhism that contemporary Buddhist studies have done much to dispel, with little success. These misrepresentations include the image of the Buddha as a hyper-rational logician or rule-obsessed moralist, nirvana described as "oblivion," etc.)
Finally, the dialogue itself rings false to someone who has spent fifteen years engaged in the academic study of Christianity, Buddhism, and religion in general. Zacharias misrepresents the Buddha and Buddhism throughout the "dialogues"; he frames Buddhist ideas in evangelical Christian terms without acknowledging it, he points out apparent inconcistencies without then allowing the Buddha to respond to his criticisms (hardly fair in a real dialogue, but in this one Zacharias got to write all the parts), and he relies on outdated Western interpretations of Buddhist thought that are, quite simply, incorrect.
While insisting that the two traditions are diametrically opposed, Zacharias repeatedly demonstrates parallels between the two. On pg. 16, Jesus says, "time isn't just a fleeting thing. It never moves forward without engraving its mark upon the heart...[it:] always [leaves:] an imprint." This is a lovely restatement of the Buddhist doctrine of karma, in which the results of each thought and action leave impressions (bijas or "seeds") in the mind. These impressions condition subsequent thoughts and actions, which in turn leave more impressions, and so on. Again, on p.18, Jesus says that "when the imagination is beguiled—which is where it all begins—and the will succumbs, the mind is unwittingly taken prisoner." Compare this to the Buddhist understanding of samsara, cyclic existence, in which the ignorant mind is unwittingly taken prisoner after it grasps onto that with which it comes into contact.
In Zacharias' book, the Buddha discusses karma, not in terms of impressions left on the mind or as the consequences of prior thoughts and actions, but as a debt that needs to be repaid. The metaphor of debts and repayment is a foreign one in my study of Buddhism, but it is quite familiar within Christianity wherein all are sinners, indebted beyond our ability to repay, and Jesus is the one who makes restitution. I suspect that Zacharias used this metaphor deliberately, in order to set Buddhist "works" against the Christian gospel of "grace." My hunch is supported by Jesus' response—"How does one pay? With what does one pay? And to whom does one pay?" The Buddha cannot answer these questions, not because he has no answers, but because karma is not understood as a debt that one must pay; rather, it is a moral law of cause and effect, more akin to Newton's laws of motion than to an accountant's ledgers. The words that Zacharias puts into the mouth of the Buddha in response to Jesus' questions reveal precisely how little the author actually understands about this religion: "But I just didn't arbitrarily make up this philosophy. Years of thought went into it." As any Buddhist will tell you, the Buddha did not make up the idea of karma out of whole cloth, nor was it a philosophy that he thought out over a long period of time. Instead, the doctrine of karma came from his recognition of a moral law of cause and effect, one that the Apostle Paul also understood: "As you sow, so shall you reap."
On page 23, Zacharias brings up a slightly thorny issue for Buddhism, the question of how to reconcile the doctrine of rebirth with the doctrine of anatman, "selflessness." In other words, if there is no essential self, then what precisely is reborn? This is a good question, and one that Buddhist thinkers have wrestled with for 2,500 years. Yet Zacharias simply acts as if he were the first person to think of the question and does very little to explore the substantial answers that Buddhists have given. In fact, on the following page, he brings up the Buddhist idea of "dependent origination" and summarily dismisses it as a "technical term" that's "far too complex to go into." This is ludicrous! The Buddha insisted that understanding the admittedly difficult doctrine of dependent origination (and understanding here means getting it in more than an intellectual way) was the same as understanding the whole of the Buddha's teachings. To write this off in a book that purports to be an honest exploration of Buddhism is akin to blowing off a discussion of the Trinity in a book on Christianity, because the doctrine is "far too complex" to talk about.
I won't even go into the Buddha's petulant complaint about Jesus' insistence on using his birth name, Gautama, rather than the honorific "Awakened One," other than to remind the reader that this is Zacharias, and not Shakyamuni Buddha, who is speaking. Similarly, the discussion between Jesus and the Buddha over which came first is absurd. Jesus' assertion that he predated the Buddha because he was present at the creation of the universe is cute ("So time ought not to be a factor of seniority here, if you don't mind. Those who define truth by the calendar run afoul of Him who created time" p. 29), but no matter how much Zacharias doth protest, the fact of the matter remains that the Buddhist religion is 500 years older than Christianity. This by itself means little, but Zacharias' attempt to refute historical fact seems to be an example of protesting too much. Additionally, Jesus' "argument" will convince many Christians of his temporal primacy, but the Buddha would have dismissed Jesus' claims to have created the universe as nonsensical—for Buddhism, time and the cosmos are beginningless.
Zacharias fills the remainder of his "dialogue" with similar mischaracterizations of the Buddha and of his teachings on karma, suffering, desire, nirvana, prayer, devotion, effort, the spiritual path, selflessness, etc. If this is as much as you will ever read about Buddhism, then Jesus' (i.e., Zacharias') questions and criticisms may indeed be difficult to rebut, and he does not make much of an effort to accurately represent the Buddhist responses to these questions and criticisms. If you study Buddhism, though, you will find that every question that Zacharias raises has been addressed, repeatedly, for thousands of years.
In short, this is a book that seeks to provide just enough information on Buddhism to remind the convinced Christian that they are right and the poor deluded Buddhists are wrong. As Zacharias himself says on p. 31, albeit in a different context, "When you mix falsehood with truth, you create a more destructive lie." A similar book on Christianity—showing its apparent inconsistencies and illogical elements—could be written just as easily, but for the most part, the Buddhists who write about the two religions try to find common ground instead of lording the superiority of their faith over that of benighted Christians. For those looking for more honest and engaging books on Christianity and Buddhism, I recommend Living Buddha, Living Christ by Thich Nhat Hanh, The Ground We Share, by Robert Aitken Roshi and Br. David Steindl-Rast, and the works of Ruben Habito. Those looking for an introduction to the teachings of the Buddha would do well to read What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula.
Sadly, for those looking to confirm their own sense of spiritual superiority, this is a good place to start.
I did find the book interesting, but probably not for the same reasons as my friend. Author Ravi Zacharias and many of his reviewers claim that the book is a dialogue meant to explore these two traditions, specifically how their teachings relate to the suffering of a prostitute dying of AIDS. Unfortunately, as the author makes quite clear in his introductory words, the book is not an objective look at the two traditions, or even a work of Christian apologetics, but is instead a thinly veiled polemic against the Buddhist religion from the perspective of an absolutist and exclusivist Christianity.
Let's dispel the idea once and for all that this book is somehow non-biased or objective. One reviewer asserts that Zacharias does not "unfairly tilt this conversation in Jesus' favor" due to his Christian faith, yet the author himself readily admits that his "conclusions must be in keeping with the Truth that can be tested," which is to say, the Christian gospel. He also says, when discussing the possible slant that the book could take, that "some fundamental ideas are inescapable and must be engaged." Some of these fundamental ideas are that "Jesus and Buddha cannot both be right" and that "behind the two symbols [of Christianity and Buddhism:] stand two diametrically opposed faiths" (all Zacharias' quotes here are from p.8). These ideas are assumed in the introduction—accordingly, the "dialogue" that makes up the bulk of the book merely demonstrates its author's assumptions. Zacharias is neither interested in looking at these two traditions on their own terms and in examining their commonalities as well as differences nor does he intend to create an authentic dialogue, where both parties come to the table as equals, each with wisdom to share with the other. Rather, he already knows the "Truth" about the situation, and merely stages a faux-dialogue as a way of demonstrating the assumed superiority of one religion over the other. Perhaps the reason Zacharias finds it "difficult to highlight the deep differences between Buddhism and Christianity and not bring offense" (p.7) is because he is not merely highlighting these differences, but applying an a priori value judgment to them as well. (Although the honesty in his introduction is welcome, his use of the dialogue format is disingenuous; Zacharias hopes to evoke an open, objective feeling while selectively putting words into the mouths of Jesus and the Buddha in order to support his polemical agenda.)
One also needs to address the "research" that Zacharias put into the book. According to him he spent "scores" of hours interviewing monks and teachers from different Buddhist traditions. One reviewer asserts that the "hours and hours of interviews" the author has conducted with monks from different locales afford Zacharias the opportunity to convey "real Buddhism" to the reader, as opposed to the "watered down, American Buddhism that is more a combination of Star Trek and Hallmark than anything that the Buddha ever taught" (this reviewer obviously harbored no reservations about offending!). Another reviewer argues that Zacharias' "representations of Jesus and Buddha are based on the best historical documents of their teachings, and not on modern interpretations or practices." Yet scores of hours of interviews with a handful of monks would no more convey an accurate and complete picture of Buddhism—a 2,500 year old religion with different traditions in dozens of Asian countries—than interviews with a dozen Franciscans and Cistercians would encapsulate the definitive essence of Christianity. And one must ask how these reviewers speak with such certainty of "real" or "historical" Buddhism without explaining their criteria for evaluating "real" vs. "watered-down" or "historical" vs. "modern interpretations." My guess is that "real" Buddhism comprises those elements that support Zacharias' polemic, while "watered-down" Buddhism constitutes anything that would make his case more problematic. (As well, Zacharias' account seems more "historical" because it is in line with the late 19th-century misrepresentations of Buddhism that contemporary Buddhist studies have done much to dispel, with little success. These misrepresentations include the image of the Buddha as a hyper-rational logician or rule-obsessed moralist, nirvana described as "oblivion," etc.)
Finally, the dialogue itself rings false to someone who has spent fifteen years engaged in the academic study of Christianity, Buddhism, and religion in general. Zacharias misrepresents the Buddha and Buddhism throughout the "dialogues"; he frames Buddhist ideas in evangelical Christian terms without acknowledging it, he points out apparent inconcistencies without then allowing the Buddha to respond to his criticisms (hardly fair in a real dialogue, but in this one Zacharias got to write all the parts), and he relies on outdated Western interpretations of Buddhist thought that are, quite simply, incorrect.
While insisting that the two traditions are diametrically opposed, Zacharias repeatedly demonstrates parallels between the two. On pg. 16, Jesus says, "time isn't just a fleeting thing. It never moves forward without engraving its mark upon the heart...[it:] always [leaves:] an imprint." This is a lovely restatement of the Buddhist doctrine of karma, in which the results of each thought and action leave impressions (bijas or "seeds") in the mind. These impressions condition subsequent thoughts and actions, which in turn leave more impressions, and so on. Again, on p.18, Jesus says that "when the imagination is beguiled—which is where it all begins—and the will succumbs, the mind is unwittingly taken prisoner." Compare this to the Buddhist understanding of samsara, cyclic existence, in which the ignorant mind is unwittingly taken prisoner after it grasps onto that with which it comes into contact.
In Zacharias' book, the Buddha discusses karma, not in terms of impressions left on the mind or as the consequences of prior thoughts and actions, but as a debt that needs to be repaid. The metaphor of debts and repayment is a foreign one in my study of Buddhism, but it is quite familiar within Christianity wherein all are sinners, indebted beyond our ability to repay, and Jesus is the one who makes restitution. I suspect that Zacharias used this metaphor deliberately, in order to set Buddhist "works" against the Christian gospel of "grace." My hunch is supported by Jesus' response—"How does one pay? With what does one pay? And to whom does one pay?" The Buddha cannot answer these questions, not because he has no answers, but because karma is not understood as a debt that one must pay; rather, it is a moral law of cause and effect, more akin to Newton's laws of motion than to an accountant's ledgers. The words that Zacharias puts into the mouth of the Buddha in response to Jesus' questions reveal precisely how little the author actually understands about this religion: "But I just didn't arbitrarily make up this philosophy. Years of thought went into it." As any Buddhist will tell you, the Buddha did not make up the idea of karma out of whole cloth, nor was it a philosophy that he thought out over a long period of time. Instead, the doctrine of karma came from his recognition of a moral law of cause and effect, one that the Apostle Paul also understood: "As you sow, so shall you reap."
On page 23, Zacharias brings up a slightly thorny issue for Buddhism, the question of how to reconcile the doctrine of rebirth with the doctrine of anatman, "selflessness." In other words, if there is no essential self, then what precisely is reborn? This is a good question, and one that Buddhist thinkers have wrestled with for 2,500 years. Yet Zacharias simply acts as if he were the first person to think of the question and does very little to explore the substantial answers that Buddhists have given. In fact, on the following page, he brings up the Buddhist idea of "dependent origination" and summarily dismisses it as a "technical term" that's "far too complex to go into." This is ludicrous! The Buddha insisted that understanding the admittedly difficult doctrine of dependent origination (and understanding here means getting it in more than an intellectual way) was the same as understanding the whole of the Buddha's teachings. To write this off in a book that purports to be an honest exploration of Buddhism is akin to blowing off a discussion of the Trinity in a book on Christianity, because the doctrine is "far too complex" to talk about.
I won't even go into the Buddha's petulant complaint about Jesus' insistence on using his birth name, Gautama, rather than the honorific "Awakened One," other than to remind the reader that this is Zacharias, and not Shakyamuni Buddha, who is speaking. Similarly, the discussion between Jesus and the Buddha over which came first is absurd. Jesus' assertion that he predated the Buddha because he was present at the creation of the universe is cute ("So time ought not to be a factor of seniority here, if you don't mind. Those who define truth by the calendar run afoul of Him who created time" p. 29), but no matter how much Zacharias doth protest, the fact of the matter remains that the Buddhist religion is 500 years older than Christianity. This by itself means little, but Zacharias' attempt to refute historical fact seems to be an example of protesting too much. Additionally, Jesus' "argument" will convince many Christians of his temporal primacy, but the Buddha would have dismissed Jesus' claims to have created the universe as nonsensical—for Buddhism, time and the cosmos are beginningless.
Zacharias fills the remainder of his "dialogue" with similar mischaracterizations of the Buddha and of his teachings on karma, suffering, desire, nirvana, prayer, devotion, effort, the spiritual path, selflessness, etc. If this is as much as you will ever read about Buddhism, then Jesus' (i.e., Zacharias') questions and criticisms may indeed be difficult to rebut, and he does not make much of an effort to accurately represent the Buddhist responses to these questions and criticisms. If you study Buddhism, though, you will find that every question that Zacharias raises has been addressed, repeatedly, for thousands of years.
In short, this is a book that seeks to provide just enough information on Buddhism to remind the convinced Christian that they are right and the poor deluded Buddhists are wrong. As Zacharias himself says on p. 31, albeit in a different context, "When you mix falsehood with truth, you create a more destructive lie." A similar book on Christianity—showing its apparent inconsistencies and illogical elements—could be written just as easily, but for the most part, the Buddhists who write about the two religions try to find common ground instead of lording the superiority of their faith over that of benighted Christians. For those looking for more honest and engaging books on Christianity and Buddhism, I recommend Living Buddha, Living Christ by Thich Nhat Hanh, The Ground We Share, by Robert Aitken Roshi and Br. David Steindl-Rast, and the works of Ruben Habito. Those looking for an introduction to the teachings of the Buddha would do well to read What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula.
Sadly, for those looking to confirm their own sense of spiritual superiority, this is a good place to start.
September 2, 2012
I think it's more like Jesus talks TO Buddha. Zacharias is a respected Christian apologist and I have enjoyed some of his things in the past since I am a Christian and I do think he is very eloquent. I'll give him points for attempting the format but he loses points because I think I hear Ravi's voice more than Jesus' voice in the conversation and Buddha never quite gets to ask the questions he has of Jesus. Although the author spent quite a lot of time with Buddhist monks to research this book I think it might have been interesting if it had been co-authored with one for more of a give and take in the conversation.
March 28, 2016
My favorite thinker of all time. Great job Ravi.
So a book where Jesus talks with Buddha. I would have written this book very differently: I would have had Jesus walk over and Chuck Norris Buddha across the court yard. I would have kept the conversation more similar to that of David and Goliath. Here's an exert: 1 Samuel 17
45David said to the Philistine, “You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the Lord Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. 46This day the Lord will deliver you into my hands, and I’ll strike you down and cut off your head. This very day I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds and the wild animals, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel. 47All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves; for the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give all of you into our hands.”
(that is why I DO NOT write religious books.)
But Ravi did a much more wonderful and useful thing. He had Jesus and Buddha discuss their existential beliefs (and Empires) to their very core. Many Buddhist sympathizers were somewhat offended by this - since Buddhism has a very disturbing core.
I loved the bonus characters in the story: Priya - the abused prostitute, and THE BOAT DRIVER (hilarious). I realize others wanted this book to be a technical study of two equal religious beliefs and worldviews - but for that to happen Buddha would have to be equal with the eternal God of the universe...and that is way more than a mild exaggeration. Buddha is just some guy who wandered away from his wife and child to find personal enlightenment (reminds me of many self-absorbed, dead-beat Dads.) Then he starved himself and had delusions - Wow, We have many Buddha-like religion starters where I live.
This book touches not just the head but the heart as well. Love is an important ingredient to the story. Jesus dies for his people, Gautama teaches about SELF.
Many reviews complain that Ravi poorly displayed Buddhism. REALLY? Is Buddhism that ambiguous that everyone is confused on the core beliefs? Apparently YES. There is a huge difference between Eastern and Western Buddhism and so-called modern Buddhism. So what is the Truth? Who cares - all Buddhists generally get reincarnated anyway...so it'll work itself out eventually.
I have yet to read the essential works of Buddha. Apparently its a few times larger than the Bible. And look how confused people get over the (amazingly clear) content of the Bible - imagine how Buddha's words are being tortured and twisted. If I made a religion I would narrow it down to a one page memo: God tried this in the Bible - but people had to stop having random sex infront of a golden calf long enough to read it properly. FAIL!
I will sum it up with a Ravi quote from the story:
"Buddhism is a well-thought-through belief that is bereft of God. More accurately, it's a philosophy of how one can be good without God...while at the same time it declares that the self is an illusion."
And that is why my story would have involved Chuck Norris going all LONE WOLF on Buddha's illusion. Living an illusionary existence can be more damaging than even Chuck's roundhouse. How sad.
So a book where Jesus talks with Buddha. I would have written this book very differently: I would have had Jesus walk over and Chuck Norris Buddha across the court yard. I would have kept the conversation more similar to that of David and Goliath. Here's an exert: 1 Samuel 17
45David said to the Philistine, “You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the Lord Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. 46This day the Lord will deliver you into my hands, and I’ll strike you down and cut off your head. This very day I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds and the wild animals, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel. 47All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves; for the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give all of you into our hands.”
(that is why I DO NOT write religious books.)
But Ravi did a much more wonderful and useful thing. He had Jesus and Buddha discuss their existential beliefs (and Empires) to their very core. Many Buddhist sympathizers were somewhat offended by this - since Buddhism has a very disturbing core.
I loved the bonus characters in the story: Priya - the abused prostitute, and THE BOAT DRIVER (hilarious). I realize others wanted this book to be a technical study of two equal religious beliefs and worldviews - but for that to happen Buddha would have to be equal with the eternal God of the universe...and that is way more than a mild exaggeration. Buddha is just some guy who wandered away from his wife and child to find personal enlightenment (reminds me of many self-absorbed, dead-beat Dads.) Then he starved himself and had delusions - Wow, We have many Buddha-like religion starters where I live.
This book touches not just the head but the heart as well. Love is an important ingredient to the story. Jesus dies for his people, Gautama teaches about SELF.
Many reviews complain that Ravi poorly displayed Buddhism. REALLY? Is Buddhism that ambiguous that everyone is confused on the core beliefs? Apparently YES. There is a huge difference between Eastern and Western Buddhism and so-called modern Buddhism. So what is the Truth? Who cares - all Buddhists generally get reincarnated anyway...so it'll work itself out eventually.
I have yet to read the essential works of Buddha. Apparently its a few times larger than the Bible. And look how confused people get over the (amazingly clear) content of the Bible - imagine how Buddha's words are being tortured and twisted. If I made a religion I would narrow it down to a one page memo: God tried this in the Bible - but people had to stop having random sex infront of a golden calf long enough to read it properly. FAIL!
I will sum it up with a Ravi quote from the story:
"Buddhism is a well-thought-through belief that is bereft of God. More accurately, it's a philosophy of how one can be good without God...while at the same time it declares that the self is an illusion."
And that is why my story would have involved Chuck Norris going all LONE WOLF on Buddha's illusion. Living an illusionary existence can be more damaging than even Chuck's roundhouse. How sad.
November 2, 2010
I won a copy of this book in goodreads giveaway.
The book sounds more interesting than it is.
Zacharias spent years in Far East talking to Buddhists religious people while researching this book. In between the lines it's strongly implied that the Buddhism is "better and more pure there than the Western version of it". However, Zacharias just doesn't get the point that Buddha made thousands of years ago, and this book is far from objective. Fine, Zacharias is a Christian and his views in everything are that - so don't try to market this book as an objective view to both religions when it's clearly not that!
This is very strongly viewing the whole dialog thru pink eyeglasses of christian views.
Zacharias (or his fantasy Buddha) just doesn't get the point of Buddhism. No matter how many years he spent in research for this dialogue, it understands as little about Buddhism as I understand Christianity (and that said as one who was shoveled down the state sponsored religion in obligatory schools until the day I turned 18 and could decide to not have anything to do with it. It was shoveled down my throat from as young as I remember, and none of it has ever made any sense.) What ever I would write about Christianity would be equally viewed from external and therefore superficial.
Jesus insists in calling Buddha Gautama, which was his birth name. Buddha doesn't call Jesus Immanuel even once.
Jesus points out that Buddha was born as a Hindu - Buddha doesn't bother to point out that Jesus was a Jew (probably the first famous reformed Jew, and for sure with the biggest Jerusalem syndrome ever).
Jesus interrupts a lots of points Buddha is trying to make. But none of the "points" or principles of why Christianity would be better are explained. (Why do you assume there are gods? Of all deity systems out there why is yours best etc)
Jesus tries to point out that buddhism is just a set of rules by showing that the monks in a Buddhist monastery have to follow so and so many rules. Really? Buddha never asked back why is it that the religious folks of any Christian variety tend to have more than 227 rules of what they should and shouldn't do.
Zacharias puts words to Buddha's mouth - such as the prerequisite of abstinence of alcohol for his followers.
Really, I expected a lot more of the dialogs in this book. Jesus, Buddha, Priya (a prostitute who died after suffering) and a boat driver talk so it's a bit more than a dialog but still. Both wise men sound like car salesmen.
Perhaps it's fine for someone with no idea about Buddhism at all (I knew more about it than is in this book by the time I was nine).
http://www.bookcrossing.com/journal/8...
The book sounds more interesting than it is.
Zacharias spent years in Far East talking to Buddhists religious people while researching this book. In between the lines it's strongly implied that the Buddhism is "better and more pure there than the Western version of it". However, Zacharias just doesn't get the point that Buddha made thousands of years ago, and this book is far from objective. Fine, Zacharias is a Christian and his views in everything are that - so don't try to market this book as an objective view to both religions when it's clearly not that!
This is very strongly viewing the whole dialog thru pink eyeglasses of christian views.
Zacharias (or his fantasy Buddha) just doesn't get the point of Buddhism. No matter how many years he spent in research for this dialogue, it understands as little about Buddhism as I understand Christianity (and that said as one who was shoveled down the state sponsored religion in obligatory schools until the day I turned 18 and could decide to not have anything to do with it. It was shoveled down my throat from as young as I remember, and none of it has ever made any sense.) What ever I would write about Christianity would be equally viewed from external and therefore superficial.
Jesus insists in calling Buddha Gautama, which was his birth name. Buddha doesn't call Jesus Immanuel even once.
Jesus points out that Buddha was born as a Hindu - Buddha doesn't bother to point out that Jesus was a Jew (probably the first famous reformed Jew, and for sure with the biggest Jerusalem syndrome ever).
Jesus interrupts a lots of points Buddha is trying to make. But none of the "points" or principles of why Christianity would be better are explained. (Why do you assume there are gods? Of all deity systems out there why is yours best etc)
Jesus tries to point out that buddhism is just a set of rules by showing that the monks in a Buddhist monastery have to follow so and so many rules. Really? Buddha never asked back why is it that the religious folks of any Christian variety tend to have more than 227 rules of what they should and shouldn't do.
Zacharias puts words to Buddha's mouth - such as the prerequisite of abstinence of alcohol for his followers.
Really, I expected a lot more of the dialogs in this book. Jesus, Buddha, Priya (a prostitute who died after suffering) and a boat driver talk so it's a bit more than a dialog but still. Both wise men sound like car salesmen.
Perhaps it's fine for someone with no idea about Buddhism at all (I knew more about it than is in this book by the time I was nine).
http://www.bookcrossing.com/journal/8...
November 15, 2010
I received a copy of this book through the Goodreads First Reads program.
I didn't really enjoy this. I suppose it's my own fault, though--I didn't really know what I was getting into, and I had never heard of Ravi Zacharias before. What I was expecting was a comparison of Christianity and Buddhism, maybe focusing on celebrating the similarities while illustrating the basic differences. Nonjudgemental comparative religion, in short. That's not what Zacharias's book is.
The idea of a dialogue between Jesus and the Buddha is an interesting one (especially if you've read Christopher Moore's Lamb). Except it's not really a conversation--it's the Buddha talking himself into corners. Jesus always gets the upper hand. Zacharias says on the introductory page that "Jesus and Buddha can't both be right," and makes it obvious from the beginning how he feels about which is the correct path. I was also uncomfortable about the inclusion of the character Priya. Instead of being just a conversation, it was a struggle over a person's soul. That just sat oddly with me. Additionally, it's been a while since I took World Religion in college, but the depiction of Buddhism seems off.
This book is short, and many pages have single quotes on them. Don't expect any real depth on either Christianity or Buddhism. It's definitely a one-sitting book. I'm glad. I enjoy comparative religion, and I do happen to be a Christian (although I don't attend church very regularly), but I dislike attacks on the beliefs of others. This book really disappointed me.
I didn't really enjoy this. I suppose it's my own fault, though--I didn't really know what I was getting into, and I had never heard of Ravi Zacharias before. What I was expecting was a comparison of Christianity and Buddhism, maybe focusing on celebrating the similarities while illustrating the basic differences. Nonjudgemental comparative religion, in short. That's not what Zacharias's book is.
The idea of a dialogue between Jesus and the Buddha is an interesting one (especially if you've read Christopher Moore's Lamb). Except it's not really a conversation--it's the Buddha talking himself into corners. Jesus always gets the upper hand. Zacharias says on the introductory page that "Jesus and Buddha can't both be right," and makes it obvious from the beginning how he feels about which is the correct path. I was also uncomfortable about the inclusion of the character Priya. Instead of being just a conversation, it was a struggle over a person's soul. That just sat oddly with me. Additionally, it's been a while since I took World Religion in college, but the depiction of Buddhism seems off.
This book is short, and many pages have single quotes on them. Don't expect any real depth on either Christianity or Buddhism. It's definitely a one-sitting book. I'm glad. I enjoy comparative religion, and I do happen to be a Christian (although I don't attend church very regularly), but I dislike attacks on the beliefs of others. This book really disappointed me.
February 13, 2012
I really liked this book. Having only a cursory knowledge of Buddhism, I found it to be interesting and helpful for any apologetic discussions I might have...though judging by some of the reviews, I realize that the logic of Zacharias' argument may not be convincing to everyone. Some people pointed out that Buddha does not question Jesus as to why Christianity is the best Theistic relegion or etc etc. That is true, but this book never promises to be a non-partisen comparison of Jesus and Buddha. It is a conversation starting with Jesus (note the title is Jesus talks with Buddha). And if people do not think that Ravi accurately expresses Buddha's teachings, does this really matter? If Buddhism is about self-enlightment/self-annihilation then Buddha's teachings shouldn't matter. After all doesn't Buddhism itself have the proverb, "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him"?
February 2, 2014
This book is basically thinly veiled propaganda for the Christian faith. It presents itself as a discussion between Jesus and Buddha with the ultimate conclusions to be drawn by the reader. The actual book reads quite different with Buddha stating his case and Jesus following up each statement by saying how Buddha is wrong and that Christ's way is the only true unquestionable path to the extent that the author writes Buddha doubting his own teachings.. in the end this book is not a debate or a fair exchange of ideas but rather an attempt by Evangelical ministry to discredit Buddhists and promote their way s the only possibility.
July 18, 2019
This short polemical book by Ravi Zacharias showcases some of what is wrong with fundamentalist Christianity. The dialogue between Jesus and Buddha which supposedly presents and compares the Christian and Buddhist religion is a joke. Even as someone who knows very little about Buddhism it is not hard to see that Jesus is up against a straw man Buddha. Some of the other reviews point this out in more detail.
A general problem in fundamentalism, which is evident in this book too, is the way that differing worldviews are encountered (in this case Buddhism). The other is seen as inferior and is thus approached from a higher position. If a certain openness to what the other has to say is missing a dialogue is pointless. The lack of openness in the book is evident: Ravi Zacharias already knows the truth and uses this constructed dialogue only to demonstrate the superiority of his religion by putting words in Buddha's mouth which, as others have pointed out, grossly misrepresent Buddhism.
Such a book would have been interesting if Buddha's parts were written by an informed representative of Buddhism. But sadly, in the way this book is written, it serves only to continue feeding the superiority complex of fundamentalist Christians.
A general problem in fundamentalism, which is evident in this book too, is the way that differing worldviews are encountered (in this case Buddhism). The other is seen as inferior and is thus approached from a higher position. If a certain openness to what the other has to say is missing a dialogue is pointless. The lack of openness in the book is evident: Ravi Zacharias already knows the truth and uses this constructed dialogue only to demonstrate the superiority of his religion by putting words in Buddha's mouth which, as others have pointed out, grossly misrepresent Buddhism.
Such a book would have been interesting if Buddha's parts were written by an informed representative of Buddhism. But sadly, in the way this book is written, it serves only to continue feeding the superiority complex of fundamentalist Christians.
July 29, 2014
Zacharias is a Christian absolutist through and through. Christianity, with all its faults and absurdities, is RIGHT. And Buddhism, with its 'Godlessness' and relativism, is WRONG.
He uses the social context of Thailand to illustrate how Buddhism fails its followers and how Jesus can be their savior, rescuing them from their karma.
You can expect the same level of objectivity that you might find in a fictional conversation narrated by Ronald Reagan between Milton Friedman and Karl Marx.
Perhaps a Buddhist apologist might like to have a go at narrating a similar conversation set in the slums of Rio de Janeiro, or maybe New York?
He uses the social context of Thailand to illustrate how Buddhism fails its followers and how Jesus can be their savior, rescuing them from their karma.
You can expect the same level of objectivity that you might find in a fictional conversation narrated by Ronald Reagan between Milton Friedman and Karl Marx.
Perhaps a Buddhist apologist might like to have a go at narrating a similar conversation set in the slums of Rio de Janeiro, or maybe New York?
December 30, 2024
Buddhists take pride in the fact that Buddha lived before Christ. But world-renowned apologist Ravi Zacharias argues:
How can time argue with eternity?
Growing up in India where the caste society had its choice of Islam, over 330 million gods in Hinduism, and surrounded by my countries and territories where Buddhism is the major religion, Zacharias was a good Hindu. That is, until, he ended up on a bed of suicide where Christ his Redeemer met with his pain and saved him.
You may be like a lotus seedling, still submerged under the water, someone else may be a full-grown plant — it makes no difference — the Cross is for everyone who thirsts for forgiveness and eternal life.
The fourth installment of his Great Conversation series, Zacharias tackles the contrasting religions of Christianity and Buddhism and compares them to what foundations each lays upon. Only one can win the title of True Religion… but which one?
You have to explain to this woman what you mean when you say that she is not an individual, and that she burns from full candlelight to the extinguishing of a candle.
Buddha says you alone have filled your cup with your choices, so you alone must drink it. I say to you something different. I have taken a drink of the cup of all human sin, suffering, and even death. At the Cross I have drank of your cup, therefore I have given you a fresh cup.
I have enjoyed this series thoroughly. Especially the first installment, “Sense and Sensuality: Jesus Talks with Oscar Wilde”. But I have learned there is a fifth in the series that no one can access, “The Prince and the Prophet”. If anyone knows any thing about this title, please let me know! 🙏
How can time argue with eternity?
Growing up in India where the caste society had its choice of Islam, over 330 million gods in Hinduism, and surrounded by my countries and territories where Buddhism is the major religion, Zacharias was a good Hindu. That is, until, he ended up on a bed of suicide where Christ his Redeemer met with his pain and saved him.
You may be like a lotus seedling, still submerged under the water, someone else may be a full-grown plant — it makes no difference — the Cross is for everyone who thirsts for forgiveness and eternal life.
The fourth installment of his Great Conversation series, Zacharias tackles the contrasting religions of Christianity and Buddhism and compares them to what foundations each lays upon. Only one can win the title of True Religion… but which one?
You have to explain to this woman what you mean when you say that she is not an individual, and that she burns from full candlelight to the extinguishing of a candle.
Buddha says you alone have filled your cup with your choices, so you alone must drink it. I say to you something different. I have taken a drink of the cup of all human sin, suffering, and even death. At the Cross I have drank of your cup, therefore I have given you a fresh cup.
I have enjoyed this series thoroughly. Especially the first installment, “Sense and Sensuality: Jesus Talks with Oscar Wilde”. But I have learned there is a fifth in the series that no one can access, “The Prince and the Prophet”. If anyone knows any thing about this title, please let me know! 🙏
December 10, 2020
I like the idea of this book. It strives to lay out some of the basic apologetics of Buddhism and Christianity via a "conversation" between Jesus, Buddha, a prostitute, and this random boatman. Considering the author, the work will obviously favor Christianity, but it has potential as a narrative for teaching about Buddhism and where Christianity differs. It is short enough to appeal to a general audience and done right might serve as a useful tool for teaching.
And maybe it does. I just felt like it was too short to come across as more than slightly patronizing. Admittedly, I'm not a newbie to the discussion. I also saw the Buddhism of Thailand when I lived there and I think there is a great need for something like this. I thus went in with perhaps higher expectations than was reasonable for 90 some pages.
I also found the narrator--because I listened to this on audio--supremely annoying. I get wanting to use accents but I really cringed when he did.
And maybe it does. I just felt like it was too short to come across as more than slightly patronizing. Admittedly, I'm not a newbie to the discussion. I also saw the Buddhism of Thailand when I lived there and I think there is a great need for something like this. I thus went in with perhaps higher expectations than was reasonable for 90 some pages.
I also found the narrator--because I listened to this on audio--supremely annoying. I get wanting to use accents but I really cringed when he did.
October 17, 2012
This book is EXCELLENT. I cannot recommend it highly enough. Ravi Zacharias is prolific in his writing, which is not news to anyone, but I found this especially useful as a reader who is soon moving to a country where Buddhism is the primary religion. In my own research on Buddhism I found it very difficult to nail down what Buddhists truly believe and how they practice- since there are several different schools of thought, as well as innumerable cultural nuances that play into each of these schools depending on what country one is from. This book served to reduce Buddhism to its very core- as taught by Buddha himself- through a conversation between he and Jesus Christ. AWESOME! Pick the book up, you won't regret it!
June 19, 2016
Jotted down some notes of my own but the main issues with this book are more eloquently expressed here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Was lent this book (as well as 'Sense and Sensuality' from the same series) and my conclusion is that while this is an interesting read, it is only interesting insofar as it gives you an insight into a Christian perspective of values and other religions. But other than that, there is little content I agree with in this book as the author severely misrepresents Buddhist beliefs and practices (while believing that he has understood the entire 2500-year-old, widely varying religion just based on some conversations with monks from a few countries). Religious and intellectual arrogance at its finest.
Was lent this book (as well as 'Sense and Sensuality' from the same series) and my conclusion is that while this is an interesting read, it is only interesting insofar as it gives you an insight into a Christian perspective of values and other religions. But other than that, there is little content I agree with in this book as the author severely misrepresents Buddhist beliefs and practices (while believing that he has understood the entire 2500-year-old, widely varying religion just based on some conversations with monks from a few countries). Religious and intellectual arrogance at its finest.
January 17, 2015
Didn't like it at all. I'm not sure who the author consulted with in regards to Shakyamuni's philosophy, however the author got it all wrong. He focused on Shakyamuni's provisional teachings and didn't even take into account the Lotus Sutra, which is unfortunate especially since "The Lotus" is directly cited in the title. This book is very misleading, and I would not suggest it to be read by anyone who wants to take a fair view into the inner workings and philosophies of either Christianity or Buddhism. Two thumbs down, a total disappointment.
May 13, 2011
This is a nice side of Ravi, a way in which I have not seen (=read) him before. But I feel that he could have done much beter, sometimes the dialogue seems like a sketch. To detail the story with more social and natural (landscape) information and how inhabitans relate to that, would have made to story richer. And I also think that you have to have a background on budism before reading this, otherwise could be confusing.
June 21, 2013
Very biased
October 3, 2016
Horrible, slanted, misinformed view. Arrogant.
September 27, 2020
A unique approach to comparing one religion to another. A thorough look into the redemption of the cross.
June 30, 2018
An excellent and intriguing read. I blazed through this and I’m going to read it again back to back right away because there is so much to glean and I don’t feel I’ve fully grasped all this book has to offer.
April 20, 2021
I was very intrigued by the title of the book and I was looking forward to witnessing a wise, compassionate, selfless, and constructive conversations about theology, religion and philosophy between two great masters of this world and the spiritual realm. I was very disappointed after reading ten pages. Nevertheless, I plowed through this short book as best I could to give it a real chance. I continued to confirm the horrible and simple approach the author took to discuss the similarities/differences between buddhism and christianity. The author just pours his pre-conceived point of view as a "truth", rather than entertain the reader with a philosophical discussion that may or may not confirm the authors "hypothesis" on the "superiority" of christianity over buddhism. His tone screams "ego", which transcends him and infects Jesus in a way that is unbelievable. His use of italics to denote sarcasm (specially in Jesus' use of sarcasm) is just absurd. The conversation is more like a debate between two second graders during recess in the playground about who's father is better. The only difference is that the debate can't be won because it has already been decided before recess who the winner is. The ego on both Buda and Jesus is crazy high, their tone is horrible, and there is an underlining "not listening to each other" which just shows how the author approached the writing of this book.
I would never read anything by Ravi Zacharias again..
I would never read anything by Ravi Zacharias again..
July 21, 2012
This is a book of incredible insight. It is one that presents in a very personal way the differences between Christianity and Buddhism.
Ravi Zacharias has put a great amount of research and understanding into showing us the struggle of a young prostitute as she meets her cultures religious leader Buddha and Jesus. The story centers on the girls struggle with her life, guilt, and how it impacts her future.
Many will approach this book with anger at how it is "unfair" towards different world views. The funny thing is that if you dig into the beliefs of a system at its core you will discover these exact truths. I have found that many will tell you what they think or feel a religion should or does teach but that is not what a religions core really is.
Zacharias moves past our feelings to get to the truth. If there is an absolute truth in this universe it must exist past our feelings and ideas to something more. Physics does not bend to our will so why would other truths of the universe. This book helps us see these truths in a very personal way.
Ravi Zacharias has put a great amount of research and understanding into showing us the struggle of a young prostitute as she meets her cultures religious leader Buddha and Jesus. The story centers on the girls struggle with her life, guilt, and how it impacts her future.
Many will approach this book with anger at how it is "unfair" towards different world views. The funny thing is that if you dig into the beliefs of a system at its core you will discover these exact truths. I have found that many will tell you what they think or feel a religion should or does teach but that is not what a religions core really is.
Zacharias moves past our feelings to get to the truth. If there is an absolute truth in this universe it must exist past our feelings and ideas to something more. Physics does not bend to our will so why would other truths of the universe. This book helps us see these truths in a very personal way.
January 3, 2017
Insightful and thought-provoking.
I really enjoyed reading this. It only took me about an hour in the morning to read through the whole thing, but that's okay. I write this from my bedroom in Cambodia, where I am serving as a student missionary for a year's time. Next week, a fellow missionary and I will begin a seminar aimed at discussing the differences between Buddhism and Christianity. I filled this book with highlights to help us in our approach.
Mr. Zacharias writes with clarity and conviction. His writing is of that rare quality that speaks to the heart through the mind. I wholly recommend this work to anyone with Buddhist friends or who is planning to work with Buddhists in an evangelistic capacity.
My only complaint is the length. For $9, I would have hoped for a substantially longer work. Nevertheless, if you are going into a mission field in which you will be working with Buddhists, this will be a very helpful read. Do yourself a favor and pick up a copy.
And, Mr. Zacharias, do me a favor and write a longer sequel. :)
I really enjoyed reading this. It only took me about an hour in the morning to read through the whole thing, but that's okay. I write this from my bedroom in Cambodia, where I am serving as a student missionary for a year's time. Next week, a fellow missionary and I will begin a seminar aimed at discussing the differences between Buddhism and Christianity. I filled this book with highlights to help us in our approach.
Mr. Zacharias writes with clarity and conviction. His writing is of that rare quality that speaks to the heart through the mind. I wholly recommend this work to anyone with Buddhist friends or who is planning to work with Buddhists in an evangelistic capacity.
My only complaint is the length. For $9, I would have hoped for a substantially longer work. Nevertheless, if you are going into a mission field in which you will be working with Buddhists, this will be a very helpful read. Do yourself a favor and pick up a copy.
And, Mr. Zacharias, do me a favor and write a longer sequel. :)
January 3, 2014
I was tempted to give this book three stars because it was thought-provoking, particularly the prologue. That said, Zacharias does a disservice to what he is trying to achieve by the way in which he does it. Parts of the dialogue feel very trivial, as if I am listening to two highly-educated men try to one-up each other all the while knowing the entire discourse is slanted. It makes the Buddha seem very flimsy, with the author's puppeteering obvious. Still, it gave me more to consider and was able to articulate some thoughts/feelings I have been considering between these two schools of thought.
December 30, 2011
Imagining a conversation between Jesus and Buddha helps bring the similarities and differences to light. Ideas illustrated in this book are consistent with other sources I've read on Buddhism and Christianity.
By the way, some people have gotten the idea that comparing religions in Thailand is illegal. That is not true. The Thai agency in charge of education standards handed all schools a set of learning objectives that REQUIRES students to compare and contrast Buddhism with other religions. Ravi's short, easy read is one way to accomplish that.
By the way, some people have gotten the idea that comparing religions in Thailand is illegal. That is not true. The Thai agency in charge of education standards handed all schools a set of learning objectives that REQUIRES students to compare and contrast Buddhism with other religions. Ravi's short, easy read is one way to accomplish that.
February 23, 2013
In conversation form, Ravi has gently accomplished a continued reminder that ideas have consequences and that Truth and contrast provide clarity.
Excellent read for clarity concerning Christ and Buddha
Excellent read for clarity concerning Christ and Buddha
April 14, 2015
An interesting theoretical conversation between Buddha and Jesus. Very good logical arguments for each side. Recommended
February 11, 2016
The author over simplified buddhism.
March 8, 2019
Interesting Book and Interesting Style
As I read, I found myself drawn into the story. I was expecting a list of doctrines and bullet points but got the story of life. How a Buddhist understands life and how a Christian understands life.
As I read, I found myself drawn into the story. I was expecting a list of doctrines and bullet points but got the story of life. How a Buddhist understands life and how a Christian understands life.
March 4, 2018
You've GOT to read this Great Conversations series: (The others are 1) New Birth or Rebirth-Jesus Talks with Krishna; 2) The Lamb and the Fuhrer--Jesus Talks with Hitler; 3) Sense and Sensuality--Jesus Talks with Oscar Wilde; & 4) Prince and the Prophet--Jesus Talks with Mohammed [to be released posthumously])! Actually, I've read most in this series years ago, but have decided to re-read them since they're so good and relevant to teaching World Religions and my life in general. They are all fictional stories, but are based on who these leaders were based on the scriptures or their autobiographies. So, in other words, they are imaginary dialogues but based on what they taught and represented in their lives. Zacharias imagines what might they say to each other based on who they were.
In this particular dialogue, The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha, Ravi introduces Priya, who was a real person who killed herself in a fire and died with AIDS after having been promised a better life in the big city only to be raped by the man who made the promise and later subjecting her to a lifestyle of prostitution [Unfortunately, this is a common story in Bangkok, which is a center for human/sex trafficking]. This book also includes a Boat Driver, a fictional character who travels to Bangkok in order eavesdrop into the conversation of them all as a seeker of truth [just as the reader of the book].
Reading this week me to post this on Facebook: "If all religions are basically the same, as so many people are saying today, why do people get so bothered when people from one religion convert to another? Or, for that matter, even consider other religions as real options?"
The book covers the following topics in an easy to read, highly informative format:
" The problem with humanity: sinful nature [Christianity] vs. ignorance & craving [Buddhism]
" The evil one, the Devil [who tempted Jesus & His followers] vs. Mara [who tempted Siddhartha Gautama]
" Forgiveness of sin [Christianity] vs. karma and reincarnation [Buddhism]
" Responding to suffering by people in the Bible vs. Buddha's teachings
" One life of Jesus [and the rest of humanity] vs. previous lives of the Buddha
" The self and one's soul [Christianity] vs. anatman (Sanskrit) or anatta (Pali), which is the Buddhist doctrine that there is no soul or self
" Jesus being perfect as God vs. the Buddha being enlightened and perfect in knowledge, yet changing "his" mind about a couple things (i.e. followers of his needed to get parental permission, which his dad, Suddhodhana, pressed him for; his mother pressed him to change his stance on allowing women to join his ranks, which he did after her persistence)
" Grace and mercy vs. superstition and legalism
" Communion vs. union/desolation
" Eternal life vs. impermanence
So, in the end, this book has LOTS of ideas to wrestle with that are primed for conversations with your Buddhist friends [or seekers who don't really know what they believe in yet]. It's a springboard for further discussions and research to determine what one should believe and build their lives upon.
Here are my notes from the reading
One day we will all find out that being respectful and sincere does not give us a license to be wrong. (8)
Prologue
The income from prostitution, they declare, exceeds the entire national budget. (10)
This dialogue is about what might Jesus and Buddha talk about in Bangkok-especially as it relates to a young girl named Priya [before she killed herself in a fire] who died with AIDS after having been promised a better life in the big city only to be raped by the man who made the promise and later subjecting her to a lifestyle of prostitution.
Jesus: Priya means "sweetheart" or "beloved." (15)
Priya: When each heartbeat sends a fresh, searing jolt of pain, why would I want it to keep beating? You know, we have a common saying in my culture when anything goes wrong-it basically means "Never mind" or "It will all work out." I heard it a dozen times a day growing up. But I don't believe that anymore. (15)
Jesus: Time isn't just a fleeting thing. It never moves forward without engraving its mark upon the heart [for better or worse]. (17)
…That's the deceit of the human heart…and of the evil one. He enticed you, as he entices everyone, in small increments. It happens all too often.
You know, when the imagination is beguiled-which is where it all begins-and the will succumbs, the mind is unwittingly taken prisoner. With each breakdown of the will comes a greater imprisonment of the mind. You end up doing what you don't want to do, and not doing what you should do. How wretched you feel then! (18)
Buddha: I, too, feel compassion for this woman, and I don't want her distracted by the things you're suggesting. Spiritual death, the Word of God, forgiveness-those are crutched for the spiritually weak. They're not realities but illusions!
And as for the evil one having some part here, I no longer believe these things in my enlightened condition. (19)
Jesus: And your followers well know that debate and disagreement aren't exactly unfamiliar terrain to you.
Buddha: Woman, you don't realize it, but everything you've lived through is the fruit of all that you yourself have sown. You were not free from debt when you were born, and you won't be free from debt when you die. You were born with a cup half full; (21)
you have filled it the rest of the way. And your every act, word, and deed has to be paid for.
Jesus: Carved into their consciences is this enormous moral debt you speak of. What an unbearable burden you're laying upon humanity, Gautama!
How does one pay? With what does one pay? And to whom does one pay? The creditor haunts but isn't there.
Buddha: But I didn't just arbitrarily make up this philosophy. Years of thought went into it. Where do I begin to explain it?
A moral law of cause and effect exists in the human consciousness. This has nothing to do with God or the evil one. Whether they exist or not is completely immaterial. The collective moral capital with which you were born, Priya, is something you had nothing to do with-that, at least, should bring you comfort.
But your present moral bankruptcy is because of the way you spent your life-that should bring you responsibility. You (22)
came into being bearing another's debt. Your choice was to reduce the debt or to pay it.
The word is karma-the karma of lives gone by or your own karma. This combination of what is inherited and what is spent is like a wheel that will either crush you or enable you to break free from its repetition when you've lived a pure life. You won't escape the results of what you've done.
There's hope, though! The sum of your good deeds and bad deeds will reappear in another life. You've made your deposit into an account that will be drawn from in a reborn life.
Priya: So I'll be reincarnated with another chance at payment, right?
Buddha: Not quite as simple as that. You're mistakenly using the term reincarnated. You're not technically incarnated again…you're reborn because you don't return as yourself. Another life will make its entrance after you're gone. That's the difference between what I call "rebirth" and what the Hindus call "reincarnation." I teach that another consciousness with the moral deposit reaped from your indebtedness will be born.
Priya: Whose karma is being worked out when each life is wrapped around so many? I wonder: Are my parents also paying for past lives through my tragedy? Are my customers paying when I sell (23)
my diseased body to them? What about the baby that I gave up? Was that its karma, even before it knew anything about good or bad? I mean, trying to reach for an answer in this karmic cycle is like putting your hand in a bucket of glue and then trying to wipe it clean. Everything you touch becomes sticky and there's nowhere to wash it off.
Buddha: I have a technical term for all this: dependent origination. Your origin is dependent upon innumerable causes, Priya.
Invest in a life of good deeds that will outweigh the bad ones. That's your only hope. (24)
I had three palaces, one for each season [growing up]. (26)
Actually, just seven days after I was born my mother died and I was raised by my aunt, whom my father married after the death of my mother.
Jesus: Centuries before pain and suffering became your pursuit, one of the patriarchs of old, a man by the name of Job, wrestled with it day and night. (27)
And in his story, Satan played a pivotal role-even as he did in yours (29)
Those who define truth by the calendar run afoul of Him who created time.
Buddha: But I see your point: How can time argue with eternity? (29)
I left the very night our son was born. I named him Rahula, which means "fetters" or "shackles." (30)
I was born a Hindu and had studied under two great Brahman [Brahmin?] teachers. Among other doctrines, I disagreed with the authority of the Vedas.
In fact, anytime my followers are uncomfortable with some of my teachings, they blame it on some Hindu influence I hadn't completely shaken off.
Then in one stretch of several days I sat motionless under a fig tree in a place called Bodhgaya. As I was meditating, something strange and wonderful happened. There came upon me a transcending memory of all my thousands-indeed, infinite number-of previous lives, and everything past, present, and future opened up like a book before me. I was in a state of unparalleled tranquility. I would call it a life of perfect balance… I saw as I had never seen before. I saw the illusion with which humanity lives. At the same time, something was extinguished as it had never been extinguished before. Every passion, every craving, every desire was gone. I was unmoved by either joy or sorrow. I became unshackled from desire.
Jesus: You determined not to give up your personal pursuit, did you say?
Buddha: I was concerned with one fundamental matter-Truth. I have since told my disciples never to follow anything or anyone just because someone else says so. You must taste and see for yourself whether something is true or false. To that I am firmly committed.
Jesus: An incredible ideal. Just think about it. How can it be possible that all desires are wrong? (33)
Think of Nathaniel [in the Gospels]…I revealed to him the innermost inclinations of his heart…Few experiences are as jolting as really knowing yourself for the first time through meeting someone else. That's the power and unpretentiousness of truth.
In fact, even as I observe your followers, they work hard at being compassionate and selfless. Some of my followers can learn much from their simplicity.
But something else quickly stands out: rules, scores of rules, like a noose tauntingly above the head, ready at the hint of one wrong move to be tightened around the neck. (34)
Take a look at this catalog of rules by which one builds his merit: 4 sets of rules for great offenses, 13 rules required for formal participation in the brotherhood, 30 rules to curb greed and possessions, 92 rules of offenses under yet another category, 75 rules for proper behavior of novices who seek admission to the order, and 7 ways of settling disputes.
The list goes on-227 rules for the male monk and 311 for the female-plus scores of fine-print contingencies. This is the Rule Book of rule books!
I see the wandering monks with their bowls in their hands, beginning each day with the hope of bringing themselves under these precepts, none ever quite sure if they've made it.
The fact is that countless numbers have sought the way of renunciation. Some have sat in caves [Tibet] for a lifetime [or decades] in meditative silence. I see them even now. I hear them in their wordless cries-but Gautama, you've not seen their hearts as I have. (35)
Buddha: In fact, many of my followers have written about how close your teachings are to mine.
Jesus: But, sad to say, those very scholars have taken the lighter matters of what I have taught and have neglected the weightier matters at the heart of my teaching.
When you mix falsehood with truth, you create a more destructive lie. In fact, many of these very scholars have even distorted what you have taught. You know, Gautama, morality as a badge of attainment breeds the deadliest state of mind-a delusion of absolute autonomy. (38)
A young ruler, also very rich, once came to me and told me that he had kept all the moral precepts, yet was still looking for life. It had eluded him
By contrast, one who sees his or her spiritual poverty and comes to God for help is far closer to God's kingdom. It's a bit like standing on a mountain and looking down at a city below. If the only path down the mountain winds around it, at times you may actually find yourself farther from the city, sometimes even losing sight of it, in order to get closer to the city.
Buddha: Life is suffering [dukkha] (40)
If I were to take two words to summarize the dilemma of being human, they would be ignorance and craving. Take Priya, for example. I pity her very much, but her life-destroying error lay in her ignorance of who she really is, not just in her existence but in her essence. In that ignorance, thinking she was pleasing herself, she went hungering after money, comfort, and success, and now she lies here shattered and dying…and she has taken others with her. Had she been devoid of her "self" and her victims devoid of their "selves," this would never have happened.
Jesus: Here we approach the first major point of surface similarity but substantive difference. When you say that (41)
she needs to free herself from the idea of self, there's a world of difference between what you're meaning and what I mean when I say that one must deny himself before following me.
Buddha: …after I realized enlightenment, I actually thought of spending my life without uttering a word of what I'd found. I was convinced that my discovery was unique and to most people unfathomable. But I broke my silence partly because my followers assured me that I was wrong in my appraisal that they wouldn't be able to understand the truth of my realizing nirvana.
But this much she must understand: that she has to shake off this notion of a personal self. You're hoping we get back to her personal quest, Jesus, but I hope exactly the opposite. I hope that she will bury the personal pursuit once and for all. (43)
Jesus: You say that you had reached a place of perfect knowledge and understanding; yet you were corrected by your disciples, not merely on the timing, but on the very mission you ultimately set upon. Please tell me, doesn't that sound a bit odd?
Knowledge was complete. No more desire. Yet the "unenlightened" were able to correct the "enlightened" and change your conclusion…and you condescended? I'm not sure it makes sense… And there were numerous other serious matters on which you yielded to their pressure.
Buddha: Yes, that's true. Long after my enlightenment my father came to me and requested that no young person join my (44)
ranks without parental permission. He had a reason for that, of course: because I had left home without his permission. So I made that a precondition for any man who wanted to join my ranks.
As for my stepmother…well, that's another story! She came to me three times and pleaded to be allowed in the ranks of the monks, and I didn't permit her to do so because I was uncertain about women being in the order. I felt it wasn't possible for women to really pay the price. Then she, along with several hundred women, shaved their heads and came once again, this time represented by my disciple Ananda, who persuaded me to accept them by reminding me of how she had sacrificially taken care of me. I finally relented and admitted them. I suppose these are the things you're thinking of.
But Jesus, my followers have pointed out how God, too, changed His mind at the entreaty of Moses and Abraham. So what's the difference?
Jesus: …one of the biggest mistakes people make is to see a small point of similarity and forget the world of difference behind it. (46)
You see, Gautama, God has given His followers the privilege of prayer and intercession. Prayer is a constant reminder that the human being is not autonomous. Prayer in its most basic form is the surging of the human spirit in its weakness, grasping at the Spirit of God in His strength. Sometimes mere words cannot give shape to the longing of the heart… God answers every prayer by either giving what is asked for or reminding the petitioner that God's provision is built on His wisdom and executed in His time. But the answer is always for the instruction and nurture of the soul. Never is any new knowledge added to the mind of God.
God doesn't respond because someone opens up some new insight for Him. No. In persistent, fervent prayer, God prepares the soil of one's heart to make room for the seed of His answer, from which will flower an alignment with His will.
That's why I often told my disciples to be persistent and pray in faith. When the seed meets the soil and the season is right, the bloom touches heaven.
Buddha: But prayer is a dimension that doesn't fit in with my teaching.
Jesus: Exactly! When you changed your mind, it wasn't because something had changed in the petitioner; something had changed in you. You drastically altered the very makeup of your following because you were moved from a place of disbelieving something to believing it. (47)
That's the reason I was careful to say that your disciples were able to change your assumptions and your conclusions-not the form, but the very substance.
That is never true of God, who knows the beginning from the end. A plea for mercy does not diminish God's perfect knowledge. In fact, it is part of the very pattern God has designed for responding to the sincere heart.
Priya: How often I dreamed that my prayer-that my cry-was heard by some power greater than mine.
Jesus: Isn't this also a core difference, Gautama? Just as the call of karma demands payment of a debt when there is no creditor to receive it, so with the desire of your followers to make a petition for their needs, there is no one to whom they can go.
Buddha: Yes, there are cardinal differences between one who prays and one who meditates. One looks beyond and the other looks within… with my followers prayer does "slip in," as you say. That's when reason is set aside and emotion triumphs. (49)
The truth is that I lived for forty-five years after realizing nirvana before my parinirvana, my departure into oblivion, at death. But during those forty-five years there was a process of clarification for me. All understanding takes time. And I was no different.
Jesus: I only raised the point because there's much more at stake here than just clarification.
You were emphatic that there was no need for God to explain the created order and no need for God to be your teacher. You said repeatedly that each person was his or her own refuge. Yet it's evident there was so much you still did not know. Your admission I respect; your reasoning on this doesn't comport with reality.
There are mysteries to life that are still beyond you, yet you claim to have arrived. Is this not troublesome to you?
Buddha: No, because I believe I have arrived.
Jesus: How do you break free from the tension? You insist on the pursuit of truth wherever it leads but get snared by this breakdown in your own claim. You not only claimed to know everything, but you also said that you knew even more than God. Job thought he knew everything, too, and when God confronted him with a flurry of questions, Job was thoroughly embarrassed about how much he did not know.
In this particular dialogue, The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha, Ravi introduces Priya, who was a real person who killed herself in a fire and died with AIDS after having been promised a better life in the big city only to be raped by the man who made the promise and later subjecting her to a lifestyle of prostitution [Unfortunately, this is a common story in Bangkok, which is a center for human/sex trafficking]. This book also includes a Boat Driver, a fictional character who travels to Bangkok in order eavesdrop into the conversation of them all as a seeker of truth [just as the reader of the book].
Reading this week me to post this on Facebook: "If all religions are basically the same, as so many people are saying today, why do people get so bothered when people from one religion convert to another? Or, for that matter, even consider other religions as real options?"
The book covers the following topics in an easy to read, highly informative format:
" The problem with humanity: sinful nature [Christianity] vs. ignorance & craving [Buddhism]
" The evil one, the Devil [who tempted Jesus & His followers] vs. Mara [who tempted Siddhartha Gautama]
" Forgiveness of sin [Christianity] vs. karma and reincarnation [Buddhism]
" Responding to suffering by people in the Bible vs. Buddha's teachings
" One life of Jesus [and the rest of humanity] vs. previous lives of the Buddha
" The self and one's soul [Christianity] vs. anatman (Sanskrit) or anatta (Pali), which is the Buddhist doctrine that there is no soul or self
" Jesus being perfect as God vs. the Buddha being enlightened and perfect in knowledge, yet changing "his" mind about a couple things (i.e. followers of his needed to get parental permission, which his dad, Suddhodhana, pressed him for; his mother pressed him to change his stance on allowing women to join his ranks, which he did after her persistence)
" Grace and mercy vs. superstition and legalism
" Communion vs. union/desolation
" Eternal life vs. impermanence
So, in the end, this book has LOTS of ideas to wrestle with that are primed for conversations with your Buddhist friends [or seekers who don't really know what they believe in yet]. It's a springboard for further discussions and research to determine what one should believe and build their lives upon.
Here are my notes from the reading
One day we will all find out that being respectful and sincere does not give us a license to be wrong. (8)
Prologue
The income from prostitution, they declare, exceeds the entire national budget. (10)
This dialogue is about what might Jesus and Buddha talk about in Bangkok-especially as it relates to a young girl named Priya [before she killed herself in a fire] who died with AIDS after having been promised a better life in the big city only to be raped by the man who made the promise and later subjecting her to a lifestyle of prostitution.
Jesus: Priya means "sweetheart" or "beloved." (15)
Priya: When each heartbeat sends a fresh, searing jolt of pain, why would I want it to keep beating? You know, we have a common saying in my culture when anything goes wrong-it basically means "Never mind" or "It will all work out." I heard it a dozen times a day growing up. But I don't believe that anymore. (15)
Jesus: Time isn't just a fleeting thing. It never moves forward without engraving its mark upon the heart [for better or worse]. (17)
…That's the deceit of the human heart…and of the evil one. He enticed you, as he entices everyone, in small increments. It happens all too often.
You know, when the imagination is beguiled-which is where it all begins-and the will succumbs, the mind is unwittingly taken prisoner. With each breakdown of the will comes a greater imprisonment of the mind. You end up doing what you don't want to do, and not doing what you should do. How wretched you feel then! (18)
Buddha: I, too, feel compassion for this woman, and I don't want her distracted by the things you're suggesting. Spiritual death, the Word of God, forgiveness-those are crutched for the spiritually weak. They're not realities but illusions!
And as for the evil one having some part here, I no longer believe these things in my enlightened condition. (19)
Jesus: And your followers well know that debate and disagreement aren't exactly unfamiliar terrain to you.
Buddha: Woman, you don't realize it, but everything you've lived through is the fruit of all that you yourself have sown. You were not free from debt when you were born, and you won't be free from debt when you die. You were born with a cup half full; (21)
you have filled it the rest of the way. And your every act, word, and deed has to be paid for.
Jesus: Carved into their consciences is this enormous moral debt you speak of. What an unbearable burden you're laying upon humanity, Gautama!
How does one pay? With what does one pay? And to whom does one pay? The creditor haunts but isn't there.
Buddha: But I didn't just arbitrarily make up this philosophy. Years of thought went into it. Where do I begin to explain it?
A moral law of cause and effect exists in the human consciousness. This has nothing to do with God or the evil one. Whether they exist or not is completely immaterial. The collective moral capital with which you were born, Priya, is something you had nothing to do with-that, at least, should bring you comfort.
But your present moral bankruptcy is because of the way you spent your life-that should bring you responsibility. You (22)
came into being bearing another's debt. Your choice was to reduce the debt or to pay it.
The word is karma-the karma of lives gone by or your own karma. This combination of what is inherited and what is spent is like a wheel that will either crush you or enable you to break free from its repetition when you've lived a pure life. You won't escape the results of what you've done.
There's hope, though! The sum of your good deeds and bad deeds will reappear in another life. You've made your deposit into an account that will be drawn from in a reborn life.
Priya: So I'll be reincarnated with another chance at payment, right?
Buddha: Not quite as simple as that. You're mistakenly using the term reincarnated. You're not technically incarnated again…you're reborn because you don't return as yourself. Another life will make its entrance after you're gone. That's the difference between what I call "rebirth" and what the Hindus call "reincarnation." I teach that another consciousness with the moral deposit reaped from your indebtedness will be born.
Priya: Whose karma is being worked out when each life is wrapped around so many? I wonder: Are my parents also paying for past lives through my tragedy? Are my customers paying when I sell (23)
my diseased body to them? What about the baby that I gave up? Was that its karma, even before it knew anything about good or bad? I mean, trying to reach for an answer in this karmic cycle is like putting your hand in a bucket of glue and then trying to wipe it clean. Everything you touch becomes sticky and there's nowhere to wash it off.
Buddha: I have a technical term for all this: dependent origination. Your origin is dependent upon innumerable causes, Priya.
Invest in a life of good deeds that will outweigh the bad ones. That's your only hope. (24)
I had three palaces, one for each season [growing up]. (26)
Actually, just seven days after I was born my mother died and I was raised by my aunt, whom my father married after the death of my mother.
Jesus: Centuries before pain and suffering became your pursuit, one of the patriarchs of old, a man by the name of Job, wrestled with it day and night. (27)
And in his story, Satan played a pivotal role-even as he did in yours (29)
Those who define truth by the calendar run afoul of Him who created time.
Buddha: But I see your point: How can time argue with eternity? (29)
I left the very night our son was born. I named him Rahula, which means "fetters" or "shackles." (30)
I was born a Hindu and had studied under two great Brahman [Brahmin?] teachers. Among other doctrines, I disagreed with the authority of the Vedas.
In fact, anytime my followers are uncomfortable with some of my teachings, they blame it on some Hindu influence I hadn't completely shaken off.
Then in one stretch of several days I sat motionless under a fig tree in a place called Bodhgaya. As I was meditating, something strange and wonderful happened. There came upon me a transcending memory of all my thousands-indeed, infinite number-of previous lives, and everything past, present, and future opened up like a book before me. I was in a state of unparalleled tranquility. I would call it a life of perfect balance… I saw as I had never seen before. I saw the illusion with which humanity lives. At the same time, something was extinguished as it had never been extinguished before. Every passion, every craving, every desire was gone. I was unmoved by either joy or sorrow. I became unshackled from desire.
Jesus: You determined not to give up your personal pursuit, did you say?
Buddha: I was concerned with one fundamental matter-Truth. I have since told my disciples never to follow anything or anyone just because someone else says so. You must taste and see for yourself whether something is true or false. To that I am firmly committed.
Jesus: An incredible ideal. Just think about it. How can it be possible that all desires are wrong? (33)
Think of Nathaniel [in the Gospels]…I revealed to him the innermost inclinations of his heart…Few experiences are as jolting as really knowing yourself for the first time through meeting someone else. That's the power and unpretentiousness of truth.
In fact, even as I observe your followers, they work hard at being compassionate and selfless. Some of my followers can learn much from their simplicity.
But something else quickly stands out: rules, scores of rules, like a noose tauntingly above the head, ready at the hint of one wrong move to be tightened around the neck. (34)
Take a look at this catalog of rules by which one builds his merit: 4 sets of rules for great offenses, 13 rules required for formal participation in the brotherhood, 30 rules to curb greed and possessions, 92 rules of offenses under yet another category, 75 rules for proper behavior of novices who seek admission to the order, and 7 ways of settling disputes.
The list goes on-227 rules for the male monk and 311 for the female-plus scores of fine-print contingencies. This is the Rule Book of rule books!
I see the wandering monks with their bowls in their hands, beginning each day with the hope of bringing themselves under these precepts, none ever quite sure if they've made it.
The fact is that countless numbers have sought the way of renunciation. Some have sat in caves [Tibet] for a lifetime [or decades] in meditative silence. I see them even now. I hear them in their wordless cries-but Gautama, you've not seen their hearts as I have. (35)
Buddha: In fact, many of my followers have written about how close your teachings are to mine.
Jesus: But, sad to say, those very scholars have taken the lighter matters of what I have taught and have neglected the weightier matters at the heart of my teaching.
When you mix falsehood with truth, you create a more destructive lie. In fact, many of these very scholars have even distorted what you have taught. You know, Gautama, morality as a badge of attainment breeds the deadliest state of mind-a delusion of absolute autonomy. (38)
A young ruler, also very rich, once came to me and told me that he had kept all the moral precepts, yet was still looking for life. It had eluded him
By contrast, one who sees his or her spiritual poverty and comes to God for help is far closer to God's kingdom. It's a bit like standing on a mountain and looking down at a city below. If the only path down the mountain winds around it, at times you may actually find yourself farther from the city, sometimes even losing sight of it, in order to get closer to the city.
Buddha: Life is suffering [dukkha] (40)
If I were to take two words to summarize the dilemma of being human, they would be ignorance and craving. Take Priya, for example. I pity her very much, but her life-destroying error lay in her ignorance of who she really is, not just in her existence but in her essence. In that ignorance, thinking she was pleasing herself, she went hungering after money, comfort, and success, and now she lies here shattered and dying…and she has taken others with her. Had she been devoid of her "self" and her victims devoid of their "selves," this would never have happened.
Jesus: Here we approach the first major point of surface similarity but substantive difference. When you say that (41)
she needs to free herself from the idea of self, there's a world of difference between what you're meaning and what I mean when I say that one must deny himself before following me.
Buddha: …after I realized enlightenment, I actually thought of spending my life without uttering a word of what I'd found. I was convinced that my discovery was unique and to most people unfathomable. But I broke my silence partly because my followers assured me that I was wrong in my appraisal that they wouldn't be able to understand the truth of my realizing nirvana.
But this much she must understand: that she has to shake off this notion of a personal self. You're hoping we get back to her personal quest, Jesus, but I hope exactly the opposite. I hope that she will bury the personal pursuit once and for all. (43)
Jesus: You say that you had reached a place of perfect knowledge and understanding; yet you were corrected by your disciples, not merely on the timing, but on the very mission you ultimately set upon. Please tell me, doesn't that sound a bit odd?
Knowledge was complete. No more desire. Yet the "unenlightened" were able to correct the "enlightened" and change your conclusion…and you condescended? I'm not sure it makes sense… And there were numerous other serious matters on which you yielded to their pressure.
Buddha: Yes, that's true. Long after my enlightenment my father came to me and requested that no young person join my (44)
ranks without parental permission. He had a reason for that, of course: because I had left home without his permission. So I made that a precondition for any man who wanted to join my ranks.
As for my stepmother…well, that's another story! She came to me three times and pleaded to be allowed in the ranks of the monks, and I didn't permit her to do so because I was uncertain about women being in the order. I felt it wasn't possible for women to really pay the price. Then she, along with several hundred women, shaved their heads and came once again, this time represented by my disciple Ananda, who persuaded me to accept them by reminding me of how she had sacrificially taken care of me. I finally relented and admitted them. I suppose these are the things you're thinking of.
But Jesus, my followers have pointed out how God, too, changed His mind at the entreaty of Moses and Abraham. So what's the difference?
Jesus: …one of the biggest mistakes people make is to see a small point of similarity and forget the world of difference behind it. (46)
You see, Gautama, God has given His followers the privilege of prayer and intercession. Prayer is a constant reminder that the human being is not autonomous. Prayer in its most basic form is the surging of the human spirit in its weakness, grasping at the Spirit of God in His strength. Sometimes mere words cannot give shape to the longing of the heart… God answers every prayer by either giving what is asked for or reminding the petitioner that God's provision is built on His wisdom and executed in His time. But the answer is always for the instruction and nurture of the soul. Never is any new knowledge added to the mind of God.
God doesn't respond because someone opens up some new insight for Him. No. In persistent, fervent prayer, God prepares the soil of one's heart to make room for the seed of His answer, from which will flower an alignment with His will.
That's why I often told my disciples to be persistent and pray in faith. When the seed meets the soil and the season is right, the bloom touches heaven.
Buddha: But prayer is a dimension that doesn't fit in with my teaching.
Jesus: Exactly! When you changed your mind, it wasn't because something had changed in the petitioner; something had changed in you. You drastically altered the very makeup of your following because you were moved from a place of disbelieving something to believing it. (47)
That's the reason I was careful to say that your disciples were able to change your assumptions and your conclusions-not the form, but the very substance.
That is never true of God, who knows the beginning from the end. A plea for mercy does not diminish God's perfect knowledge. In fact, it is part of the very pattern God has designed for responding to the sincere heart.
Priya: How often I dreamed that my prayer-that my cry-was heard by some power greater than mine.
Jesus: Isn't this also a core difference, Gautama? Just as the call of karma demands payment of a debt when there is no creditor to receive it, so with the desire of your followers to make a petition for their needs, there is no one to whom they can go.
Buddha: Yes, there are cardinal differences between one who prays and one who meditates. One looks beyond and the other looks within… with my followers prayer does "slip in," as you say. That's when reason is set aside and emotion triumphs. (49)
The truth is that I lived for forty-five years after realizing nirvana before my parinirvana, my departure into oblivion, at death. But during those forty-five years there was a process of clarification for me. All understanding takes time. And I was no different.
Jesus: I only raised the point because there's much more at stake here than just clarification.
You were emphatic that there was no need for God to explain the created order and no need for God to be your teacher. You said repeatedly that each person was his or her own refuge. Yet it's evident there was so much you still did not know. Your admission I respect; your reasoning on this doesn't comport with reality.
There are mysteries to life that are still beyond you, yet you claim to have arrived. Is this not troublesome to you?
Buddha: No, because I believe I have arrived.
Jesus: How do you break free from the tension? You insist on the pursuit of truth wherever it leads but get snared by this breakdown in your own claim. You not only claimed to know everything, but you also said that you knew even more than God. Job thought he knew everything, too, and when God confronted him with a flurry of questions, Job was thoroughly embarrassed about how much he did not know.
October 22, 2019
Very philosophical and deep - difficult for me to wrap my head around. I learned a lot about the religion of Buddha; so very hopeless and depressing! Ravi paints a word picture of a conversation between Buddha and Jesus Christ, to outline to differences.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 185 reviews