Rating: 
Summary: Please do not read this book.
Review: Ravi Zacharias writes with a mission, namely to discount the similarities and possibile interconnectedness of Christianity and Buddhism. If you wish to determine the relationship between these two major religions for yourself, please read something else more historical or factual. His arguments are specious as he has an incomplete understanding of Buddhism, and seemingly even his own Christian religion. This book is propaganda, not research or fact. There are many inaccuracies and things overlooked.
Rating:
Summary: Biased Misrepresentation and Falsification on Buddhism
Review: The author portrayed himself as the Buddha in his book talking about Karma stating that "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."
The first part of the statement is correct that the Buddha taught one to be responsible for one's own action or Karma. He never taught that one is born in debt and will die in debt, but simply taught:
"Volition, O monks, I declare is karma. Having willed, man acts with deed, words, or thought."
"I am owner of my karma, heir of my karma, born of my karma, related to my karma and abide supported by my karma. Whatever karma I have done, good or evil, of that shall I be heir."
Buddhists of all sects never view life as being born in debt and will die in debt, but simply born neutral and it is up to oneself to do good or bad deeds, one is responsible for. Therefore it is irrelevant whether there is a creditor to collect the debt or not, as being incorrectly scrutinized by the Jesus character that 'karma demands payment of a debt when there is no creditor to receive it.' He disguised himself as the Buddha, saying that ".... after realizing nirvana before my parinirvana, my departure into oblivion, at death. But during those 45 years there was a process of clarification for me. All understanding takes time. And I was no different."
It is very sad to see a proclaimed scholar falsified such statements. First of all, parinirvana is not a state of oblivion or unawareness, unconsciousness or being forgotten. He passed away while being in the state of full awareness, free of greed, hatred, and delusion, in a state of ultimate peace and total liberation of mind (nirvana).
Buddhism was fully formed overnight through the Buddha's self-enlightenment. He taught the very same things through out his life for the next 45 years. He did not need any more time to understand or any process of clarification, as being made up by the author pointing out his limited understanding of Buddhism and readiness for falsification. He mistakenly proclaimed as the Buddha's teaching that "Once we realize that the self doesn't exist, we find the middle way between asceticism and pleasure, and in that balance, life ceases to hold us hostage to our attachments." The Buddha taught one to tread the Middle Path, avoiding the two extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification, as they are vulgar, painful, and useless. It is through practicing the Middle Path that led him to realize the Ultimate Truths and witness the Three Universal Characteristics of Existence of Impermanence, Imperfection, and Not-self. It was not the other way around as he wrote. He portrayed as Jesus asked the Buddha to take Priya's hand, and see that he is not touching just skin and bones, but a person, and the Buddha replied, "No, I cannot touch her." And Jesus said, "That's the ultimate expression of her destitution."
He intentionally smeared the Buddha as a cold-hearted person. He applied the monk's 227 precepts, forbidding touching a female, to avoid lust. Not realized that such precept is not applicable to sick and dying persons. Sick monks can be cared by female physicians and nurses, without any wrong doing, as having no lust in such activities. The Buddha emphasized Loving-kindness and Compassion as the main part of his teachings. True compassion is not based on touching or physical contact, but it touches the mind, much deeper than physical contact. The Buddha would have opened Priya's eyes to wisdom, letting her realize the Ultimate Truth and freeing herself from suffering. Similarly, at the end of the conversation, the author wrongfully accused that the Buddha cannot go back to Priya's house's with her, while Jesus clearly stated that he can.
Here again, the author failed to do his homework researching the history of Buddhism.
During the Buddha's time, hardly any attention was paid to nursing or caring for the sick. The Buddha himself personally took care of a sick monk with diarrhea, laying in his own urine and feces. He set an example for the monk community and advised them to care for each other when one got sick. This resulted in building wards for sick monks by laities, and later on, King Asoka was to build hospitals not only for the public, but also for the sick animals. These serve as the establishment of the first hospitals in the history of mankind. Confrontation is healthy when it is done in fairness with proven facts and without bias to both parties. Biased intention is a grave danger as it misleads the readers to have misconceptions towards the premeditated chosen victim, in this case, Buddhism. To be warmly received in Thailand with loving-kindness and compassion from the Buddhist monks and teachers does not mean that what he learned from them are all true as he implied, because it needs further research to confirm the truths, not a blind belief. It is very wrong and harmful to put one's own biased thoughts and words and smear them as being the Buddha's words.
Buddhism always emphasizes the importance of realizing the truth, and in fact it is the goal of Buddhism to experience reality as they truly are through enlightenment. The Buddha even stated that, 'There can be only one truth, not two."
"Ravi, you are no Buddha! It is sinful for you to fool and blind others from the truth through your misguided statements, denying them future opportunities to further enrich themselves in the ultimate truth of Buddhism, the awakened way of life. You have successfully accomplished in proving your own words and statement that 'To be handcuffed by a lie is the worst of all imprisonments.'" Kongsak Tanphaichitr, M.D.
Chairman, Buddhist Council of Greater St. Louis
Rating: 
Summary: Poignant and Enlightening Book!
Review: The author shows a conversation that might have occurred between the two religious leaders. Of course Buddhists will not like the deep Christian convictions of Zacharias, but that is to be expected. Buddhists claim to have an open mind when discussing Christianity, but as proven by many a review, they are as closed-minded as I would expect them to be when they feel that their religion is not being exalted. We are all protective of our religion, and Zacharias is showing Christianity as the truth that it is in a world that says many paths to God are possible.
Rating: 
Summary: Poor representation of both religions
Review: The Buddha that speaks is primarily a Theravadin Buddha, though the majority of Buddhists in the world are of the Mahayana (e.g. Zen, Pure Land, Tendai) and Vajrayana (e.g. Tibetan) traditions. Many of the "problems" that Jesus presents were resolved in later historical developments of Buddhism, so it is not fair to only represent the Buddhism that existed during Gautama's lifetime.
Worse still, the Jesus is an Evangelical Protestant Jesus. I am not sure whether Buddhists will be offended by Zacharias' book, but many Christians should be! As a Roman Catholic Christian, from that point of view I can say that the teachings of Jesus as presented in this book are extremely shallow. I would go so far as to say that Buddha's explanations were superior in this book than Jesus Christ's!
I gave the book 2 stars not 1, because I can see how it would be useful for a read who has little or no familiarity with either of these religious teachings. Also, Zacharias is very right when he uses suffering as the starting point for the dialogue; the way that these two teachers answer the problem of suffering is the most important thing to compare and contrast.
Rating:
Summary: Not very informative
Review: The key weakness in "The Lotus and the Cross" is the lack of information about either Buddhism or Christianity. The book seems to be written for Christians who want to learn more about Buddhism. However, the book spends no time introducing Buddhist or Christian ideas before debating them. Most of the points of debate fit into a larger framework in each religion, but this framework is not presented for either Buddhism or Christianity. If anyone is interested in learning more about Buddhism (in a concise form), the book Buddhism A Very Short Introduction, by Damien Keown, is short and inexpensive (maybe a little dry, though). The book Buddhism Plain & Simple, by Steve Hagan is also good. Perhaps a Christian reviewer could recommend a book that gives a brief introduction to Christianity.
Rating: 
Summary: Seeing Jesus Makes a Difference
Review: The Lotus and the Cross models an excellent way to clarify the glaring differences between Jesus and the Buddha. as a Bible college graduate and an avid reader on/of other religions, i appreciate its straightforwardness that many Christian books for the masses lack. it takes the reader to the a scene that would be familiar to the Buddha and yet strikingly different than how things were in his time. Jesus lights the way even for the enlightened one, an irony gladly welcomed in a day when truth is no longer absolute to many. through his discourse with the Buddha, Jesus shares His light with two others who are along from the ride. the mental images evoked from Christ's compassion for the lost are profound (especially against the stalwart Buddha who must follow his rules for conduct, no matter what the circumstances), even for the most callous among us, reminding me of just what kind of Savior we have. Zacharias gives insight into how different someone's life might have been had she met Christ; this lends itself to a most compelling urgency to share the Gospel that we may truly be ambassadors for Christ.
Rating:
Summary: The only Buddha I know
Review: The only Buddha I know is Siddharta Gautama. A prince, a husband, a father that left his palace, his wife and his baby one night. For me, who once a Buddhist, it only meant one thing, you can throw away your responsibilities to satisfy your own needs.
Holy Spirit in Christianity is absolutely NOT something we have to search inside ourselves. God is God. Man is man. Human being is just created and wanted to run away from the Creator and all the responsibilities. Yes, I'm a Christian now. I cannot avoid it. Jesus has done His duty perfectly.
DR. RZ wrote his books based on many researches and his own experiences. Those who don't agree with him probably were too afraid to admit that he's right and would have to reconsider their own beliefs.
Rating:
Summary: Wasted Opportunity
Review: This author is not qualified to speak for either person he represents in this book.
The 'book' itself is itself more of a script for a play you might see put on in a church basement by the youth group than a book. In the forward, the author says that he spent 'scores of hours' studying Buddhism. Broken down, that translates to, at the very least, 60 hours. Not nearly enough, in my estimation, to be putting words in the mouth of the Buddha. And the insulting and belittling fashion in which he portrays Jesus is also disconcerting. With the audience Mister Zacharias commands, I was disappointed with the squandered opportunity. This had the potential to be something special but, in the end, it's wrong-headed & needlessly sneering.
Rating:
Summary: Unclear purpose
Review: This book is set out to prove that Buddhism and Christianity cannot co-exist, and therefore one must be right and one must be wrong. From the start, this book sets off on the wrong foot. I agree that this book is a good viewpoint of Christianity to Buddhist, at least at a first glance (but I don't recommend it). On the other hand, I would recommend no Christian to read this, because it distorts Buddha's message and intentions. If you are interested in looking at Buddhism, go to other sources about Buddhism, written for beginners to understand his teachings. By reading a critical point of view, a view of contrast, conclusions may be drawn where they should instead be explored.
The biggest misconception this book offers it that Buddhists believe there is no self, but actually Buddhists believe in finding the *true* self, similar in a way to the Holy Spirit (the sacred part of every one of us).
Most of all, this book seems to be written with an unclear purpose. If it was to convert Buddhists, they would be sorely discouraged by the misconceptions of their own religion, and it would seem unfair. To Christians, it certainly doesn't offer any open-mindedness, or any with truth behind it. I encourage anyone, Christian or Buddhist, to find a less critical and more accurate look at the opposite religion elsewhere.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointly Oversimplified
Review: This book manages to be both lightweight and mean spirited at the same time - quite an achievement in this age of feelgood pop psychology religious books. What Ravi Zacharias has done is set up Buddha as a fall guy - a foil to Jesus' clever but restrained comebacks. At one point Zacharias has Jesus saying to Buddha: "As I pointed out earlier, one of the biggest mistakes people make is to see a small point of similarity and forget the world of difference behind it." Jesus then goes on to do his best to point out all the differences between himself and Buddha - and most of these distinctions are based on a deliberately narrow misinterpration of Buddhism, and are framed in exclusively Western perceptions. A friend gave me this book to read - and I am returning it to him in the spirit it was given, ie a spirt of genuine open-minded enquiry. Alas, the same cannot be said for Zacharias' dubious endeavour. A quote from the front inside blurbs points out the book's use as "the latest addition to our intellectual arsenal". Why? Why the incessant need to drag down another's religion in order to bolster the claims of one's own? Why so much focus on nitpicking differences? Why do I get the nagging feeling that Zacharias finds McLaughlin's News Hour the highest form of intellectual enquiry? If Jesus were actually to speak with Buddha, I guarantee you it wouldn't sound like this.
|
