Jesus Talks with Buddha (Great Conversations) - The Lotus and the Cross

I love his intellectual approach and his calm, logical writing and reasoning. Anyone reading Ravi Zachariah books with the ability to understand those things will have to admit the existence of Jesus Christ and GOD and that they need a personal relationship with them. Otherwise you're just being stubborn and making yourself your own god. It's always your choice, but the consequences are eternal. Choose wisely

Highly recommend!

My field is Chinese religions and how they relate to Christianity. So in a sense, this book is "right up my alley," though I know Confucianism and Taoist somewhat better than Buddhism, and Mahayana better than the Theraveda Zacharius critiques here. Also, my perspective is neither the exclusivism assumed here, nor the pluralism that some of the book's critics here seem to hold to, at least in theory. (Though some of the books they recommend, in my experience, are actually just as narrow-minded in their own way, interpreting Christianity in Buddhist terms, rather than critiquing Buddhism from a Christian perspective.) I approach world religions from what I call "Fulfillment Theology," in the tradition of Paul on Mars Hill, Clement of Alexandria, Mateo Ricci, G. K. Chesterton, and C. S. Lewis, to give a few examples.

Let me also say that I like many aspects of Buddhism, and many Buddhists whom I've been privileged to know. But I've never felt the slightest inclination to believe in Buddhism, in part for some of the reasons Ravi mentions here.

The first thing to note about this book is it is well-written. The plot is ingenious: Buddha and Jesus dialogue with a Thai prostitute, while traveling up a waterway in Bangkok on a boat, with the boatman chipping in sometimes amusing observations. Not all the dialogue works: as the "pluralist" reviewers note, Jesus sometimes comes across as too flip or even a bit obnoxious, and Buddha doesn't always get the best lines. But what did you expect? Zacharius is a Christian, explaining why he thinks Christ is superior. Buddhists do the same thing, let's not pretend otherwise. The book is readable and interesting, sometimes insightful, though Jesus sounds more like Ravi than anyone else.

The biggest weaknesses of this book are theological (but not, to me, as bad as his more overt Jesus Among Other Gods), because Ravi fails to follow Paul's example in Acts 17, and his general ignorance of Buddhism.

The latter appears more serious, but in a sense is I think less so. Several Buddhists have complained that Ravi didn't get Buddha right. One intelligent reviewer says he should either have presented both in their traditional spiritual guises, or both in their demythologized forms.

But this is not so, because Buddha is not I think as accessible to history as Jesus. The sources are later, and less convincing, historically, in my opinion. I for one believe Siddhartha Gautama actually lived, but that it is hard now to be sure what sort of person he really was. Was he mainly a philosopher, a kind of Indian Socrates? A religious enterpreneur, like Ching Hai, the Vietnamese nun, or Lu Shengyan, the Taiwanese artist and phony-baloney "living Buddha" whom I studied for my MA? I think the gospels show all kinds of internal signs of credibility, and Jesus would have been hard to invent.

Besides, Buddhists themselves have made up enough stories about Buddha to draw a point: why shouldn't Ravi do the same? At least he admits he's making the story up.

So this is an interesting and readable book, but don't think you're getting the final word on the Buddha, or the final refutation of whatever it was he really taught. Ravi is, first and foremost, not a scholar of religions, but a preacher. Read as a kind of narrative sermon, this is a pretty good book. Though even there, I think Ravi needs to rethink some of his basic assumptions, and probably learn more about the next religion he writes a book on.

While not venturing too deep and opaquely into the complexities of religion this book starkly contrasts to of the major religions pointing out there differences and dispelling the myth that they hold similar teachings.
As follower of Jesus the final conclusion is clear and well - supported, he offers the only truth

The book is an imaginary conversation that Jesus would have with Buddha. This is Ravi Zacharias at his best, and my favorite of his books that I have read. Ravi opens up the book by situating it with a wonderful description of a Buddhist country, and while he never names the country, one soon realize that the river setting he describe in his travel is Thailand. Even as he describe it, I can imagine the Mekong River (how I would love to go one day, being that I am Laotian-Chinese American). But among the beautiful scenery, he describe the tragedy of a news story he read about a Thai prostitute that eventually burned down her house as a sucidal escape. Here, the author ponders about what Jesus and Buddha would have to say and offer her. Thus, he launches into the meat of the book. Ravi does an excellent job here. For an apologist, the author is able to weave in great apologetics with tact, gentleness and creativity. Often apologist can carry what I call "battle-rattle" (what in the Marine we call our war gear, so much of it can be so clumsy on us, but needed for the tool of the trade), with technical terms and jargon for the toughest of opponents. In this book Zacharias was able to write for the general reading audience and yet manage to give penetrating insight into the internal philosophical inconsistencies within Buddhism. Another plus was the way Zacharias was able to put into Biblical motif and illustrations in Jesus response. Zacharias is truly a master wordsmith in writing the dialogue. As a former atheist born into a Buddhist household that turned Christian, I thought Zacharias did a fair job in portraying as true to life as possible what one can imagine Buddha and Jesus would say. The ending is also touching, marking the biggest difference between Jesus and Buddha, and what Jesus ends with in his address to the Thai prostitute is gripping--intellectually, emotionally and spiritually. Read it for yourself!

The Purchase: Earlier this month I purchased Ravi Zacharias' The Lotus and the Cross from the the store China site, and once again I was pleased with the store China's fast and reliable services. The the store China site continues to improve their imported book selection, and I was glad to have finally read The Lotus and the Cross. The Lotus and the Cross is a book I purchased as a gift over a decade ago, and it was on my the store Wish List for several years. I don't often read fiction, but the story of Jesus having a conversation with Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) intrigued me.

The Author: Ravi Zacharias is an Indian-born Christian apologist and author who has spoken at top universities such as Harvard and Oxford. I became a fan of Dr. Zacharias soon after moving to China when I read his book, Jesus Among Other Gods. The Lotus and the Cross is a much quicker read at less than 90 pages. It should be noted that there are numerous pages throughout the book containing only one sentence from the story. Dr. Zacharias traveled to India and a few Southeast Asian nations in researching for The Lotus and the Cross.

The Recommendation: Although there are many critics of the book, there are also many who give high praise for The Lotus and the Cross. I enjoyed the book and would recommend it to Christians and those who have a general interest in Buddhism or religion. If you are a devout Buddhist, you might not like Dr. Zacharias' interpretation of Buddhism. Dr. Zacharias covered the basic teachings of Siddhartha Gautama and not the many complex schools of thoughts and ethnic traditions within Buddhism. Although I would have liked the story to have continued, I appreciated Zacharias' epilogue and believe his book can and has provided good food for thought.

Mr Zacharias has taken an interesting idea, but has only developed it through its baby steps. Due to the short nature of the work, it deals with many probing and deep questions in only a surface manner; that said, however, most of the questions are worth asking and discussing. In fact, my fellow students at the Nalanda College of Buddhist studies have raised some of them on their own, not to mention ones far more critical than Zacharias seems aware of, which is why I find the reviews below, that engage in name-calling and hysterical language, rather humorous. Buddhists do not need to respond like this, or engage in baseless psychologizing of others' motives, or hide behind the individualized adaptations of the Buddha's teachings when they're given an honest question. Yes, I do think the Buddha would have been more responsive if this had been a real dialogue. Yes, there are real answers for some of these questions; some of them go back to Buddhist writings thousands of years old, such as the Milindapanha. But folks, honestly, take a pill. If you can't handle or answer a few sincere and commonly asked questions about Buddhism, even by Buddhists themselves, then you need to know more about the tradition. Buddhism has a long and distinguished career of letting all questioners come and allowing all doubts to be put on the table for discussion, and this book presents such things in an honestly inquiring and polite, though edgy, manner. If you want to cut below the current politically correct shallow level of inter-religious dialogue, and see where the real flash-points are going to be between your typical traditional Buddhist and typical traditional Christian, Zacharias will quickly locate them for you.

The description for this book is deceptive. Rather than simply being about God's love for man, the sole purpose of this book by a fundamentalist Christian apologist, is to persuade people that Buddhism and all religions other than Christianity are wrong, and thereby influence them to leave their religions. The other goal of this book is to dissuade people from ever exploring or considering these other religions. He is not a scholar with insight into these religions, as anyone who knows the difference between valid scholarship and pseudo-scholarship that is based in irredeemable bias can tell you. This and Zecharias' other books are an insult to the loving Christ he claims to follow, and are also not well written.

Dr. Ravi Zacharias is a world renowned Christian speaker and has taken his usual apologetics one step further with this hypothetical conversation between Priya the Sinner, Jesus Christ the Saviour, Gautama Buddha the Enlightened One, and the Boat Driver the Clueless One. As they cruise the river in this boat, Jesus offers Priya comfort, salvation, assurance, and Buddha offers her rules, the karmic threadmill, illusions, reninciation of self. Point by point, Jesus (played by Ravi) picks apart Gautama (played by Ravi). Through the dialogue Dr. Zacharias is able to present the claims of Christ, the agape love of a God who beckons all to come to Him through Christ. As the conversation wears on, Buddha is reduced to one or two line rebuttals, "I think...I'll have to think on that. I have a terrible feeling I'm backing myself into a corner here." "The thought is deep...and troublesome. But I have to agree with it." All philosophical debate out of the way, Jesus then offers Priya and the Boat Driver (Wat) that He has paid for all of their sins, and that she will have eternal life if she believes in Him. Buddha can only offer the Triple Gem, which Jesus shreds as empty nothingness. He offers to exchange Priya's cup of sin and giver her a fresh cup of eternal life. Buddha replies, "It's getting a bit dark; it's time to return. Who'll pay the boatman? I don't keep any money with me." Jesus' last word is Rev 3:20, He'll go home with Priya and Wat. Buddha's is "No, I can't." Jesus says: "I can".
There are deep meanings found in the dialogue, and this book will present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Buddhists and other interested parties, but I found it slightly amusing that both Jesus and Buddha sounded a lot like Ravi Zacharias. Somehow I cannot imagine Jesus actually talking like a Christian apologetic, "Which means the absolute you posit becomes only relatively true. If it's only relatively true, it can no longer be stated as an absolute.", as He spoke in parables in the Bible to illustrate the same principles. I would recommend instead reading a Bible and looking at the words in red. :-) I would also recommend listening to Dr. Zacharias' radio program [...] if you want to learn more about different world views between Christianity and other religions and our postmodern culture. Dr. Zacharis also has an excellent book on this subject "Jesus Among Other Gods". Dr. Zacharias does offer an unique point of view having been raised in the East among Hindus (although he himself was never a Hindu), and then immigrating to the West and traveling around the world. In addition, he is well educated on philosophy, comparative religion and cultures and is living an interesting life.

Where do I begin?

A critique on the formatting itself. This book is in audio form. But it weirdly repeated itself at the 20 minute mark after Buddha was talking about lack of happiness with money. I will now lay out the parts I didn't agree with in regard to the substance of this book.

Firstly, The bias against the Buddha are very noticeable. So much so in fact, that it was hard for me to look past it. At one point, I started to write down all I noticed as the novel was still going, in order to write this review. I was hoping to enjoy this book more, as the premise and story line would have been an incredible journey. However, sadly, I couldn't get past the challenging bias promoting Christianity instead of Buddhism. I suppose I should have known this would be the case when I first listened, considering the title is "Jesus talks with Buddha", instead of "Buddha talks with Jesus."

The bias against Buddha (I'll call him B for short, and J for Jesus.) was evidenced when J tried to make B seem illogical, emotion based, and frankly, eager to argue. This really saddened me. Not only did the author promote J in a calm, respectful, and patient manner, he made J appear more saintly and truthful. Jesus tends to imply that Buddha's belief in karmic law (reaping what you sow) is somehow wrong. And illogical. Not even mentioning that The New Testament says this very thing. Gal 6:7 " Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" Not only is this hypocrisy blatant in the book, but the author goes on to imply that this belief IS true, but only when Jesus is subliminally implying he is the one that frees us from this karmic cycle. (I agree, Christ does do this.)

I almost got the impression that the reader was instructed to believe that Buddha's teaching (and his followers) not only believe these principles of karma and soul "recycling" (for lack of a better term) but that somehow they are gullible for believing it. All the while, the irony is the Bible promotes a similar construct if it's read in a non-literal way (which clearly, this author chooses not to.)

The author continues to accentuate the patience of Jesus, while making it appear Buddha is constantly wanting to argue and be quick to retaliation in the dialogue. Appears Buddha exalts himself (almost boastfully) to claim he is somehow better than everyone else. In my opinion, this is both dangerous and not representative of what Buddha stood for. The author makes it appear as if mentioning enlightenment is not only wrong, but something to be ashamed of. He clearly takes cheap shots at Buddha in his slanted agenda toward minimizing the works and beliefs of Buddha. The author makes it clear that Buddha is self-righteous, rooted in ego, and completely opposed to humbleness. This saddened me. And I'm not even a Buddhist.

Jesus then practically condemns Buddha for leaving religious principles and doctrines. And almost minimizes his followers for rejecting all worldly religions, as well. Although, I admit, the author didn't promote Christianity at this segment in the book, he did a very nice job of convincing the reader that Buddha was wrong for choosing to ignore all religious dogma, doctrine and rules. Then, Jesus goes on to list all the rules Buddhism creates, ironically not mentioning the serious perversion of Jesus' real teachings in Christianity that have led to hundreds or rules, as well. Not to even mention the Old Testament laws and regulations that the Jews still follow today. It became glaringly obvious that Jesus was the calm, defender of peace and Buddha was the antagonistic, self-absorbed character in this book. Again, don't know why I expected differently from a book categorized under "Christian" books.

What really irked me though, was the part where the Buddha states (in my own words) "I guess I have to be careful how I choose my words with you, let's talk about this question later." This is obviously done (to those that are awake to notice it) as a clever way to convince the reader that Buddha's theories can't be debated. As if he is too scared to successfully debate with Jesus. The author makes Buddha appear weak and scared to get his point across. This does two things; convinces the reader that Jesus is winning the argument, and also, conveniently keeps the author from having to explain Buddha's principles and beliefs to a reader that is already susceptible to alternate religions and ideas apart from Christianity (or they probably wouldn't be reading this in the first place.)

The author makes it a priority to show the differences in how Jesus and Buddha were born. Jesus, obviously poor, and Buddha, extremely rich. Almost criminalizing the fact that Buddha was rich. When even himself (in the book) says that this rich lifestyle didn't lead to happiness at all. In fact, that it was a way to self-discovery for him. In that he learned materialistic things doesn't make anyone happy. I will give the author credit here, as it's obvious he made an emphasis on money not equaling happiness. But it felt like another cheap shot on the way Buddha was raised.

The author writes as if Buddha and Jesus didn't come to earth for the same mission. To love others and show us how to live. As if they weren't two sides to the same coin. In fact, by pointing out their few differences, the author instinctively makes these two revolutionary "leaders" appear to be in an egotistical, mud slinging match. As if the Christ and Buddha would ever do such a thing. But it's obvious that this is the direction this author wanted the book to go. It could have been a much more ground breaking, thought provoking work of literature if the author had, instead of just writing about these men, actually learned from them. This book could have been something special. The premise and plot alone would transform lives. Yet, the author found it necessary to expose the negatives associated with the "mainstream" idea of these two religions. Instead of really digging deep to unite the two movements, the ego seeks to divide and scrutinize. It's obvious to me now, this author probably had good intentions. But this book didn't work for me. I couldn't even finish it. After about the 30 minute mark, it became too blatantly obvious to look past anymore. Which is a real let down, because I was eager to explore the other works of this author, where Jesus speaks with other religious leaders.

To MDA from Boston, you misread Wangden Kelsang's review. He first quotes a problem quote from the book, and then addresses it. You read
"The Buddhist must reach his ultimate goal entirely on his own strength..."
as _his_ words, but they are not. That sentence was a misconception to which he was addressing, which is why 2 sentences later he writes "The idea that we can achieve enlightenment on our own is foreign to Buddhism." He was not being contridictory, he was addressing, refuting, a misconception.
His review is dead-on. The book is good as far as it goes, but it should be realized that it presents one school/sect of Buddhism and of Christianity and thus while some good can still be had from such a book, it also must be kept in mind that it is a large oversimplification.

Very one sided towards Christianity (fundamentalist). Uses a "straw man" approach to discredit Buddhism. The book misrepresents Buddhist thought and practice thereby elevating his own moral position - that is a narrow, fundamentalist Christianity.

As others have said this book BARELY scratches the surface on the contrast of the two. I don't have the most informed opinion on the subject, but from what little I've studied I'd say it's accurate. Espeically since the author holds a master's degree.
I give this book 4 stars and not five only becuase I don't feel that Buddha had enough of a hearing. The slant was, understandibly, Christian. Now I know everything Jesus teaches and everything that he claimed to be, but not enough about Buddha. It would've been nice to the Lotus flower a little more.
That's why I say that Buddhists should read this book more then a Christian. Regardless of how accurate the interpatation of Buddhism is, it is VERY clear about the diffrences between the two great religions. I think about the biggest aspect is that Buddha doesn't believe in an intellegent higher power interacting in the affairs of man, but that belief is central to Christianity. It also illustrates that the Buddhist must reach his ultimate goal entirely on his own strength, whereas the Christian meets his ultimate goal (salvation) by God's Grace and God's power. It's a guanteed ticket that you didn't do for yourself in otherwords.
Also to clear up the end of the Book, when Pirya asks Buddha and Christs to go with and Buddha says "I can't" it was more to illustrate that Christ is not a God who taught and then "went away" but rather Christ is a God who is still able to be active in our lives, as seen by the revelation of John, the Doctrine that comes from other books in the Bible, and every single testimony of a REAL Christian. As far as I know, Buddhism can't make that claim.
Bottom line? If you're a Christian curious about Buddhism, this book is a starter at best, but I would look to this author's other books. But if you're a Buddhist, I HIGHLY recommend this book, espiecally if you've delved into the comparison books. Even if his interpation of Buddha's teachings are totally off, his interpation of Christ's is dead on.
Fascinating either way though.

When i was practicing Buddhism and other eastern philosophy, i found this book. It displays a imagined dialog between Jesus and Buddha. Both offer their way to Priya, a girl that was born into life of prostitution, in Thailand.

So Priya asks both many questions, and both figures give very different answers.

Though Buddha offered salvation through looking within. Jesus offered himself as the way to be set free.

Some might not agree or believe in Jesus's way, about believing and living for him, and then after physical death, spending eternity with him, who claims to be the son of God.

Buddha would of warned against relying in Jesus , citing that to him, Jesus was only a man, and if he were indeed God, that even a God was imprisoned by sense pleasures and was on the wheel of continual suffering ,and there by cant offer much assistance in the form of salvation or liberation. Sinse, in theory, God is conditioned and a sentient being must not attach to the conditioned, the temporary, for it only brings more suffering and further imprisonment to the cycle of suffering, in his view.

My conclusion, as a Buddhist, and understanding what i did of Christianity and the Bible, was that Jesus was everlasting, he rose from the dead, since he is God and God , in my view, being the author of the laws of time and space and the entire natural order, can interveen and make things happen.

Buddha's world view was absent of a creator, he thought it was fantasy probubly, but i dont think God is a fantasy, i think its likly there is a grand architect of the universe, a supreme intelligence that jumped started life and keeps everything moving. And if the Bible is true that this God is eternal, then my reliance of this higher power would be a wise move, since He isnt conditioned. That was my understand.

So having trust in Jesus was not an un-skillful move. but actually solved the problem of the wheel of suffering, in my eyes. That suffering wont be erased in this life, but is used as a way to strengthen and mature and bring one closer to their creator.

And with this, i followed Jesus.

I believe Buddhism doesnt necessarily have to be void of God or a higher power. Understanding that God can be a reality to an idividual, and it doesnt have to be fantasy. To them, this could be as real as the nose on their face, but even more so sense it isnt subject to decay and old age, remembering that this God is above time and space, not being subject to the very laws he put into place. Everlasting.

Even the Dhali Lama noted that Buddhism will go where ever the truth leads, and if the future shows reason to believe that a creator indeed exists, which mainy think they have great compelling evidense, that Buddhism should adapt and evolve.

This is an honest policy. But as Buddhists, are we really ready to follow where ever the truth takes us? I dont know.

But as for me, as i followed Prince Siddharthas own instruction....following truth where ever it goes....it took me to Jesus Christ.

This is me though. You may differ in how you took this book. But it fairly shows the differences between the two people. Its also somewhat of a humorous and witty book. Painting a picture for us as the two and priya sail atop the water.

The author actually used to be a high caste Hindu , and is now a Doctor and Christian Apologist. He is very intelligent and found out about Jesus himself, in turn having some backlash by the commnity and family he was in, but he followed the truth where it led also i think.

He comes from the east, and is well read and crediable source for debate or insight into eastern religion. Which he interviewed various monks for the making of this book.

He actually wrote this based on while he was in Thailand, and imagined how a conversion between Jesus And Buddha would carry out.

Even if you are not Christian. Or not Buddhist, and just interested in these two as historical figures, its still interesting to see how they would possibly answer certain questions and offer their own solutions to problems the girl presents to them, concerning life, death, morality,spirituality and so on.

Very interesting. Whether or not one will agree on the conclusion in the book. I personally agree with the conclusion, but if you dont, it doesnt matter, becouse in the end, Buddha still has is final say for the girl, presenting his middle way, and Christ gives his way to freedom from what he calls sin.

Interesting read none the less. I recommend it. It had a big affect on me becouse it opened my eyes to somethings many years ago, while i was in the midst of my study of buddhist and other eastern teaching.

Christianity is exclusive in one sense and Christianity is not exclusive in another. Jesus himself proclaimed himself God and the only way to God (John 1:1, 14:6, 8:24-36) but Jesus also invites all to come (i.e. John 3:16). Yes, Jesus said that you cannot share Jesus with other gods or things. Jesus must be your heart's sole desire. But if you have the desire to come to Christ, you can indeed come.

Buddhist sympathizers reviewing this book have an imbalanced amount of vitriol towards Ravi and this excellent book, and are doing so through the lens of their own ignorance. Worse here is the amazing arrogance they assert by claiming that they know better what Jesus would say than an learned and established Christian such as Ravi. It's one thing to accuse Ravi of mischaracterizing Buddha, but it's completely absurd to assert that they would know better about what Jesus would say.

Now it is true that Ravi takes a fairly current event and uses it as an occasion to put forth a reasonable conversation between Jesus and Gautama (Buddha), and his conversation has the fictional Gautama on the defense. But seriously, what do you expect from someone who has a concrete worldview whose religion is every bit about educating those of other religions that Christianity really is all about proclaiming that Jesus Christ is the supreme God, and that warning that Jesus really is the only path to God?

And why is bias all that shocking for so many? We all have it. No matter how hard we try to pull oursevles above it or to toss it aside so that others will hear us, we cannot shake it. The real questions that one needs to ask are this: Is the author being reasonable and is the author right?

Personally, I found this book to be insightful, even-handed and well written. Ravi strikes hard at several Buddhist inconsistencies and illogical fallices, but yet keeps the conversation above the fray without resorting to "name calling" or ad homs that degrade this conversation into rhetorical irrelevance. The tone is simple, conversational and polite, and is nothing like what other reviewers here have inferred

I am amazed at the reaction of several reviewers here (who are being intolerant and exclusive in their own right) who clearly do not have a clue what true Christianity entails. And should these critics truly be Buddhists, then they do little more than give their religion a black eye.

I heard Ravi Zacharias speak once at a Ligonier Ministries National Conference. He was an engaging speaker who demonstrated mastery of the subject he was presenting. This is the first book of his that I've read and I found his writing style to also be engaging. It's a short book, just shy of 100 pages, and I finished it in one sitting (something unusual for me).

In the introduction I read that Zacharias "found it difficult to highlight the deep differences between Buddhism and Christianity and not bring offense." I was nervous that he might water down the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. On the next page Zacharias put my fears to rest, stating "Jesus and Buddha cannot both be right...being respectful and sincere does not give us license to be wrong." At that point I felt much better.

The book, as the subtitle suggests, is an imaginary conversation between Jesus, Buddha, a young woman named Priya, and a boat driver. I normally detest imaginary conversations but Zacharias crafted this well. I'm not that familiar with Buddha, but the way Jesus spoke in this "conversation" sounded very authentic and was filled with allusions to Scripture so it often sounded like something Jesus said in the Bible.

I did find the boat driver's involvement in the "conversation"to be somewhat distraction. I suppose he was there for comedic relief. He grew on me slowly but I would have preferred a silent boat driver. Aside from that one minor gripe I found the "conversation" a somewhat good one to hear. If a reader doesn't mind the imaginary conversation this book could be useful in understanding Jesus a little better. However, some of the allusions I readily noticed might not be picked up by those less familiar with the Bible and the meaning may be missed.

* Per the regulations of our increasingly intrusive government in the United States, I must acknowledge that this book was provided to me by Multnomah Books for the purpose of reviewing. Their giving me this book, which retails for $11.99, increases my net worth by such an insignificant amount that it has virtually no impact on my review.

Ravi Zacharias is always enjoyable to read in all his books and that goes also for the volumes in the Great Conversations Series. One of the volumes in the series I was able to review was The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha. In this small read we get the opportunity to eavesdrop on a unique conversation between Jesus and another great thinker whose life has influenced millions. This is none other than Gautama Buddha the spiritual teacher from ancient India whose quest for the meaning of life is the foundation for Buddhism.

In the introduction to the book, Zacharias informs us that he sought out Buddhist of various denominations in order to accurately represent Buddha in this narrative. Apologist and philosopher Zacharias create a delightful scenario that exposes God's true nature which is Jesus' passionate love and concern for the salvation of all people. This book is great for seekers even though Zacharias does not provide a complete refutation of Buddhism in this small work. It does give a primer for a critical first look at the faith, philosophy, and implications of Buddhism.

The story rotates around an AIDS infected prostitute in Thailand named Priya on a boat with a boatman, Jesus and Buddha along for the ride. Throughout there interaction the love of Christ transcends as He provides not mere philosophy but the very need of her soul which is redemption. Ravi hits hard at several Buddhist fallices by exposing their illogical inconsistencies. The conversation between Jesus and Buddha is polite and simple in tone and consistent with Zacharias writing ability to engage the heart and stimulate the mind.

The statement Ravi makes "Jesus and Buddha cannot both be right" is the premise of the conversation that is limited to the principles that each teacher taught and the defense of each of their teachings. The conversation goes along with questions like when Jesus asks Buddha, "What, Lord Jesus, would you have said to Priya, had she brought her decrepit body and aching heart to you? We see Buddha offered salvation through looking within, while Jesus offered his sacrificial death. In the end I would comment that we need to see more books like this that offer comparisons in worldviews, philosophy and answers to life's questions. A highly recommended read to say the least.

-As per FTC Guidelines, I must state that I was given a review copy of "The Lotus And The Cross". My opinions are expressly my own, and are in no way positively or negatively influenced, due to receiving this Book to review-

As an avid Ravi Zacharias fan, I eagerly anticipated the release of The Lotus and the Cross and I was thoroughly pleased with the book's content and style. Ravi Zacharias has a reputation for his intellect and sensitivity, being able to engage both the mind and the heart. I applaud him on a job well done.
Possible voices of dissension could arise from a Christian perspective in wondering how ANYONE could imagine being able to speak in the place of Jesus. As a Christian, I can respond by admitting that Ravi Zacharias, of course, will be fallible in representing Jesus. But what you find as you read the book is that Zacharias is very faithful to the Bible in representing Jesus, paraphrasing Jesus' words from various passages in the Bible, and sometimes even quoting the Biblical Jesus word for word. And it is not difficult to read this book imagining this version of Jesus as "Ravi's version of Jesus" and still benefit from the book.
An even further complaint could come from the Buddhist who might argue that Gautama Buddha was misrepresented or distorted. As a non-Buddhist, I eagerly anticipate responses of where Zacharias may have been historically or doctrinally inaccurate of Buddha's positions. I also look forward to hearing Buddhist reactions in how the character of Buddha is treated.
One complaint that I do not think is legitimate is one that says, "Jesus seemed to come out in the upper-hand of all of the arguments." The legitimate complaint would not be who comes out upper-hand, but whether or not both positions were presented fairly and accurately. While we should be sensitive, truth is what we are searching for, not pluralism.
Aside from these objections, The Lotus and the Cross is a very easy-read and is captivating from cover to cover. The book opens with the story of a girl who left her home to seek life in the city, was raped, became a prostitute, and eventually contracted AIDS and burned herself. What would Jesus have said in response to the plight of this suffering and anguished girl? What would Buddha have said? What would they have said to each other? The plot is engaging as both Buddha and Jesus present their answers to life's struggles, engaging each other in cordial dialogue. For the average Christian, this may a good intro into the basics of Buddhism. From the opening prologue to the closing words of Jesus and Buddha, this is a very fascinating and engaging book and would be a benefit for both Christian and Buddhist alike.

As September 11th shows, we are not one world, and these types of books can help open our mind. Dr. Z's expertise comes from who he is--an Indian who emigrated to Canada, then to the United states. So he is really capable because he is an amphibian: both Eastern and Western, Hindu and Christian.
He follows the Platonic pattern of not selling a syllogism, but designing a dialogue to illustrate an idea. This is a hypothetical qudrologue involving Jesus and Buddha as they discuss and talk with a young prostitute about why she is dying of AIDS. Hardball questions with hardball answers.
I am impressed with the amount of research Dr. Z put into this book--hours and hours of interviews with Buddhist monks in Malaysia, Thailand, India, and Singapore. That may be why so many people don't like the book: Dr, Z is discussing real Buddhism, not the watered down, Americanized Buddhism that is more a combination of Star Trek and Hallmark than anything that the Buddha ever taught.
The book is small, with an unimposing 94 pages and is 6" X 6", so it can be read in one setting. The cover and illustrations are soft and inviting, much like any "Deep thoughts" book. The binding has held up to my rough handling.
This book will not satisfy everyone, since it deals with very hard and sensitive issues, very personal issues, but I hope that quote-unquote sensitivity is not a cop out from thought and a well-meaning calm discussion. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and it is an odd thing not to see my religion criticized, but I have never backed down from a free and honest discussion. In fact, if religion cannot stand up to hardball and slicing questions, then it is as Gov. Jesse Ventura has said, just "a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers."

If reincarnation is a type of punishment and if we, when made perfect cease to be reborn into this world why were we born into this world in the first place? (assuming there had to be a first birth) For what sin were we paying for in our first birth? And if all religions are the same why did Buddha reject Hinduism?
I used to follow Zen before I made a committment to follow Christ. One thing which suprised me was that I met Christians who knew more about Zen than I did.
The point being this. Sometimes you can see things more clearly from the outside than from the inside. When I was involved in Zen I was so focused on those things which were true I was unable to see all that which was false.
There are serious deficiences with Buddhism. It does no good pretending that they are not there. There are some very real differences between what Christ taught and what Buddha taught.
Blindness is characterized by an inability to make distinctions. Distinctions are imporant whether we are trying to understand different concepts or different religions. Teachings about what is right and what is wrong, why people suffer and how one is to please God (if that is their goal) or be saved make a real difference in how people live their lives. Lets be adult enough to admit that different beliefs amount to real differences in how we live and relate to others.
Some, because they cannot see important distinctions, think that there are none. Don't be led by those who are blind.
Read the book for yourself.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is disheartening that such a lovely concept (Jesus and the Buddha conversing) - was so cruelly and viciously slaughtered by Ravi Zacharias. If one is truly interested in the Buddhist perspective on Christianity - I suggest they read "The Good Heart" by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. "The Good Heart" documents an historic meeting of truly open and loving minds of holy and scholarly men and women.
In "The Lotus and the Cross" Zacharias shows his ignorance in the first page of his introduction. He notes that "At times there was frustration on their [the monks] faces when the questions became tough and their answers dissimilar" ... after spending so much time with Buddhists and traveling so far and wide - one would expect Zacharias to AT LEAST have learned that Buddhism teaches to the level of the student's ability to understand. If the student isn't ready to hear - nothing will make sense. The Buddha Shakyamuni himself taught in this way. (which resulted in the different schools of Buddhism).
If Zacharias saw frustration on the monks's faces, it was frustration in knowing that he wouldn't understand their answer(s). A frustration maybe, in trying to find simple words to portray deep intricate concepts to a mind that was shallow and closed. His ignorance again blazing in the very first words he imagines Buddha speaking - that he could keep silent no longer. The Buddha would have seen the value and truth in the words that Jesus spoke to the woman. He would have agreed and supported Jesus, especially if he noted that the woman found peace and comfort in the words. I could go on and on in this manner - regarding virtually everything he imagined the Buddha saying.
I challenge the author to allow a Buddhist with true understanding of the philosophy to re-write Buddha's parts (or even someone like me who has the understanding of a bug!) - this would at least paint a more honest picture of the Buddha and his teachings. I gave the book one star because it wouldn't allow me to give it a zero.

I am a Kadampa Buddhist monk and teacher. A Christian woman lent me this book, and I tried to read it with an open mind. However, I found it very difficult to continue after the author's horrible mis-portrayal of both the character of Buddha Shakyamuni (the "Gautama" of the book) and his teachings on Karma. I would like to clear up some misconceptions passed on in the review by undragoned1.
1) "Buddha doesn't believe in an intellegent higher power interacting in the affairs of man, but that belief is central to Christianity."
This may be true of the Therevada Buddhists interviewed by the author, but in Mahayana Buddhism we believe that there are countless Buddhas constantly working to free us from suffering. While the concept of "Buddha" is different from the Christian concept of "God", they do interact with us every day.
2) "the Buddhist must reach his ultimate goal entirely on his own strength, whereas the Christian meets his ultimate goal (salvation) by God's Grace and God's power. It's a guanteed ticket that you didn't do for yourself in otherwords."
The idea that we can achieve enlightenment on our own is foreign to Buddhism. It requires a great deal of help: blessings from enlightened beings (very similar to Christian "grace"), guidance from teachers, and help from spiritual friends. Yes, there is also work to be done from our own side, but this is only possible with help from holy beings.
3) Buddhism *can* make the claim that Buddha Shakyamuni "is still able to be active in our lives". See above.
4) The back cover of the book claims that Buddha denies that the self even exists. This is a gross oversimplification of Buddha's teachings on emptiness, and in particular the selflessness of persons. This topic is very subtle and very deep; I cannot do it justice here. Suffice it to say that the critical question is not *whether* the self exists, but *how* it exists. The self exists, but not in the way that we think it does.
I gave this book two stars rather than one merely to give it the benefit of the doubt; I have not finished it and probably won't. I cannot recommend it to anyone. Christians reading this book will be deceived about the real nature of Buddhism, and Buddhists reading this book will see an insulting distortion of their religion.
If you want to read an authentic explanation of Buddhism, I can recommend "Introduction to Buddhism" by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. Other customer reviews have referenced some good, authentic books as well.

Dr. Ravi Zacharias is a brilliant scholar and theologian. Having spent much time debating and conversing with Buddhist monks in Asia, Dr. Zacharias set out to write a book that brings two leading teachers together in a fictional encounter between the Buddha and Jesus Christ.

I found this work to be fast paced and truly a delight to read. Having not studied much of Buddhism, it was a real eye-opener to see how Jesus and the Buddha view life and morality. World-views collade in this work. After 96 pages you get a quick overview of Buddhism and you see the superority of Jesus and the Bible over Buddhism. Buddhism has no foundation, no moral basis but feelings, and nothing but experience to drive it. Christianity, built upon the Lord Jesus, His death and His resurrection, is a solid religion that is the only way to God (John 14:6).

For more information on Dr. Ravi Zacharias see his ministry at [...]

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? If Jesus were actually to speak with Buddha, I guarantee you it wouldn't sound like this.

Once again I was pleasently surprised and please with Dr. Zacharias writings. I couldn't imagine such a conversation. What Would Jesus say to Buddha?
With the accustomed elegant and insightful style, Dr. Zacharias take us to new apologetics frontiers. In a personal journey and yet with historical preciseness Dr. Zacharia contrasts two messages to humanity. More important, Jesus and Buddah themselves go beyond the rhetorical arguments to minister to our present reality. One will disembark from your journey, and the other one ....will stay trough the storms of life and go all the way to eternity.

I must give this book five stars just because the author had the guts to tackle a project like this! Writing and publishing a fictional dialogue between Jesus and Buddha is akin to attaching a bull's eye to your chest and proclaiming it's open season on Christian apologists. Yet this is exactly the kind of book we need to see a lot more of, and I look forward to Ravi Zacharias writing more books with Jesus conversing with many other famous religious figures throughout history.
The concept behind the book is rather simple. A prostitute named Priya is slowing dying of AIDS. She takes a long, slow boat ride with both Jesus and Buddha, and they talk to her about her condition, and what she can do about it. As you might imagine, both have quite different approaches in their explanation about her current situation, and what she can do to overcome it. The time frame is the modern world, but it is important to note that the representations of Jesus and Buddha are based on the best historical documents of their teachings, and not on modern interpretations or practices. This makes sense, as both the Christian and the Buddhist religions are guilty of distorting their founder's teachings in one degree or another.
Though one would think that since Ravi Zacharias is himself a Christian, and one of the most intelligent thoughtful Christian thinkers of our day, that he would unfairly tilt this conversation in Jesus' favor. Yet Zacharias seems to go out of his way to give Buddha every advantage possible and does not even allow Jesus the option of using the miraculous powers ascribed to him in biblical accounts. So the conversation is limited to the principles that each man taught, and their defense of those principles. It is very much a debate, not a showdown.
To be fair, if Ravi were to allow Jesus his full nature as recorded in the Gospels, this book would be one page long, as Jesus could have healed Priya of her disease and forgiven her of her sins within a few seconds of meeting her, leaving little room for Buddha to do anything but stare in awe and wonder! (There are many accounts of Jesus doing just this sort of thing throughout the Gospel accounts.) Buddha never claimed to be divine, and even denied the importance of any sort of transcendent supreme being. But Jesus claimed to be the son of God, and often accepted the adoring worship of his followers. Buddha did not perform miracles, but the Gospel accounts are filled with Jesus healing, prophesying, and casting out demons, and raising people from the dead.
Zacharias strips Jesus of most of these supernatural abilities in his book, and leaves him as a teacher only, in order to make for a more interesting comparison with Buddha. But in doing so, we don't really have an honest comparison, for Jesus often taught that knowledge in and of itself was not sufficient, but that the kingdom of God demanded action, hence the many miraculous deeds attributed to him. Jesus was not on this earth to give us a better, more profound philosophy of life, but to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God did in fact exist by the exercise of various compassionate miraculous acts. Yet the message was not only that God exists, but that He greatly cares for and loves each and every one of us. Yes, Buddha also preached the need for compassionate acts and demonstrated them in his own life, but it was not in order to demonstrate his divinity. If any of the two men are shown in an inaccurate light based on the best historical documents, it would have to be Jesus who suffers the greater handicap.
With that in mind, do buy and read this book, and see what you think. By far one of the most thought provoking and interesting works I've read. Highly recommended.

Dr. Zacharias is one of the most compelling, interesting, and thought-provoking scholars on Christianity. It is no surprise that he writes a book that utterly dismantles the foundations of the Buddhist perspective. That is, if this is your only exposure to Buddhism.

What is surprising is how blatant and shallow Dr. Zacharias is in his deception and pursuit to move the reader to Christianity. I have read other reviews here that call the book fair. I suppose from a defensive Christian perspective, maybe that appears to be the case.

Dr. Zacharias personifies Gautama as narcissistic, ignorant, defensive, argumentative, confused. He personifies Jesus as confident, soft, patient, all-knowing, yet condescending.

He sets it up as a schoolboy trying to debate the teacher. Predictably, Gautama gets schooled by Jesus.

He interchanges Hindu gods (plural) with God (the One) when trying to point out Gautama's inconsistencies, underscoring his own lack of understanding of the Buddha. For instance, Dr. Zacharias says that Buddha claimed to know more than even God. Yet, for that to be true, Buddha would have to accept that there is a God.

In his writing, he positions the Buddha as trying to "obliterate relationships" by rejecting ego-ness, the self, in favor of the perspective that we are all interconnected, that we are all one. Yet, isn't that the essence of relationship? Our interconnectedness?

He accuses the Buddha of eliminating all hope for people by saying "You took God away from them, Gautama, so they live in fear of the spirit world." The irony here is profound since most people's fear of the spirit world centers on the concept of Hell.

There is further inconsistency when he accuses Buddha of establishing too many rules, then admonishes him for not establishing an "abiding authority."

Ultimately, Dr. Zacharias is brilliant. He has written a book that Christians can affirm and Buddhists can acknowledge. Yet, if you are a seeker who wants to understand the fundamental and true differences and similarities between Buddhism and Christianity, this is not the book for you.

It is profound in its deception of Buddhism and defense of Christianity. It is profound in that it has and will continue to stir debate.

I recommend it to anyone who wants to know what a philosophical Christian, one whose life has been compelled to defend that which he asserts as absolute truth, thinks of Buddhism.

I must give this book five stars just because the author had the guts to tackle a project like this! Writing and publishing a fictional dialogue between Jesus and Buddha is akin to attaching a bull's eye to your chest and proclaiming it's open season on Christian apologists. Yet this is exactly the kind of book we need to see a lot more of, and I look forward to Ravi Zacharias writing more books with Jesus conversing with many other famous religious figures throughout history.
The concept behind the book is rather simple. A prostitute named Priya is slowing dying of AIDS. She takes a long, slow boat ride with both Jesus and Buddha, and they talk to her about her condition, and what she can do about it. As you might imagine, both have quite different approaches in their explanation about her current situation, and what she can do to overcome it. The time frame is the modern world, but it is important to note that the representations of Jesus and Buddha are based on the best historical documents of their teachings, and not on modern interpretations or practices. This makes sense, as both the Christian and the Buddhist religions are guilty of distorting their founder's teachings in one degree or another.
Though one would think that since Ravi Zacharias is himself a Christian, and one of the most intelligent thoughtful Christian thinkers of our day, that he would unfairly tilt this conversation in Jesus' favor. Yet Zacharias seems to go out of his way to give Buddha every advantage possible and does not even allow Jesus the option of using the miraculous powers ascribed to him in biblical accounts. So the conversation is limited to the principles that each man taught, and their defense of those principles. It is very much a debate, not a showdown.
To be fair, if Ravi were to allow Jesus his full nature as recorded in the Gospels, this book would be one page long, as Jesus could have healed Priya of her disease and forgiven her of her sins within a few seconds of meeting her, leaving little room for Buddha to do anything but stare in awe and wonder! (There are many accounts of Jesus doing just this sort of thing throughout the Gospel accounts.) Buddha never claimed to be divine, and even denied the importance of any sort of transcendent supreme being. But Jesus claimed to be the son of God, and often accepted the adoring worship of his followers. Buddha did not perform miracles, but the Gospel accounts are filled with Jesus healing, prophesying, and casting out demons, and raising people from the dead.
Zacharias strips Jesus of most of these supernatural abilities in his book, and leaves him as a teacher only, in order to make for a more interesting comparison with Buddha. But in doing so, we don't really have an honest comparison, for Jesus often taught that knowledge in and of itself was not sufficient, but that the kingdom of God demanded action, hence the many miraculous deeds attributed to him. Jesus was not on this earth to give us a better, more profound philosophy of life, but to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God did in fact exist by the exercise of various compassionate miraculous acts. Yet the message was not only that God exists, but that He greatly cares for and loves each and every one of us. Yes, Buddha also preached the need for compassionate acts and demonstrated them in his own life, but it was not in order to demonstrate his divinity. If any of the two men are shown in an inaccurate light based on the best historical documents, it would have to be Jesus who suffers the greater handicap.
With that in mind, do buy and read this book, and see what you think. By far one of the most thought provoking and interesting works I've read. Highly recommended.

Dr. Zacharias is one of the most compelling, interesting, and thought-provoking scholars on Christianity. It is no surprise that he writes a book that utterly dismantles the foundations of the Buddhist perspective. That is, if this is your only exposure to Buddhism.

What is surprising is how blatant and shallow Dr. Zacharias is in his deception and pursuit to move the reader to Christianity. I have read other reviews here that call the book fair. I suppose from a defensive Christian perspective, maybe that appears to be the case.

Dr. Zacharias personifies Gautama as narcissistic, ignorant, defensive, argumentative, confused. He personifies Jesus as confident, soft, patient, all-knowing, yet condescending.

He sets it up as a schoolboy trying to debate the teacher. Predictably, Gautama gets schooled by Jesus.

He interchanges Hindu gods (plural) with God (the One) when trying to point out Gautama's inconsistencies, underscoring his own lack of understanding of the Buddha. For instance, Dr. Zacharias says that Buddha claimed to know more than even God. Yet, for that to be true, Buddha would have to accept that there is a God.

In his writing, he positions the Buddha as trying to "obliterate relationships" by rejecting ego-ness, the self, in favor of the perspective that we are all interconnected, that we are all one. Yet, isn't that the essence of relationship? Our interconnectedness?

He accuses the Buddha of eliminating all hope for people by saying "You took God away from them, Gautama, so they live in fear of the spirit world." The irony here is profound since most people's fear of the spirit world centers on the concept of Hell.

There is further inconsistency when he accuses Buddha of establishing too many rules, then admonishes him for not establishing an "abiding authority."

Ultimately, Dr. Zacharias is brilliant. He has written a book that Christians can affirm and Buddhists can acknowledge. Yet, if you are a seeker who wants to understand the fundamental and true differences and similarities between Buddhism and Christianity, this is not the book for you.

It is profound in its deception of Buddhism and defense of Christianity. It is profound in that it has and will continue to stir debate.

I recommend it to anyone who wants to know what a philosophical Christian, one whose life has been compelled to defend that which he asserts as absolute truth, thinks of Buddhism.

I have read three books by Mr. Zacharias to date. His writing is insightful, creative, thought provoking, and real. He is a man of God, and his heart is to serve the Holy Lord.
The Lotus & the Cross is just the newest of a great series of books.
The book is not one to read lightly, whether you are a Christian, Buddhist, atheist, whatever. I really had to ask myself what I believed in regards to my faith as a Christian. I think that Ravi Zacharias presents a realistic light on Buddha and his teachings, as well as Christ's teachings in regards to Buddhist beliefs!

When I think of books concerning Jesus and Buddha, books like Thich Nhat Hanh's Living Buddha, Living Christ usually come to mind - books that try to bring the two spiritual teachers together - this book aims at doing the exact opposite, setting them apart. I do not think there would be anything wrong with this if it were un-biased.. such a book might even be an interesting read. But the fact that the author takes sides makes it a pretty pathetic and sad work. It's not that Mr. Zacharias is a bad author.. I do really like the concept, but I think it was either poorly researched or that he misinterpreted the Buddha's teachings. I also think it is rather silly how the author himself calls the Buddha the Heart of Compassion, but when Priya (the main character) asks him to walk her home, he refuses, for no reason other than he does not wish to. Jesus of course, goes with her. Not a very likely scenario. If it had stayed true to both of their personalities, they both would have gone with her. Also, the whole structure of the story is rather silly. For the most part, it's kind of like this. Jesus says something to Priya about how her life would have been better if she had followed the word of God. Buddha disagrees. Jesus tells Buddha that he is wrong for disagreeing and justifies his claims with quotes from the Bible. Buddha dwells on this, then admits Jesus is right and he was wrong in everything he taught. It's basically just a long, childish argument between two spiritual teachers which most likely would never happen in the first place, since the Buddha was respectful towards people of different beliefs, and Christ (despite what the scriptures say) probably was too.

Want to read a good comparative work on Christianity and Buddhism?
Try:
1. Living Buddha, Living Christ, by Thich Nhat Hanh
2. Zen and the Birds of Appetite by Thomas Merton
This book is WAY overpriced for what you get, and, as several folks have already explained is a gross mischaracterization of Buddhism.
So, you've got the conundrum folks: either Ravi knows this, and assumes his readership is too lazy to find something like "Mindfulness in Plain English" by Venerable Henepola Gunaratana, or he really is that ignorant.
I give him credit for being intelligent.

Why do so many detractors request an "unbiased" approach? This is an impossibility. Anyone who knows Ravi, knows his bias, or leaning, is Christianity. One cannot reject his own beliefs. If he can, then I suggest his beliefs are not true, or at least not truly believed. If you say, "I believe the sky is blue, but you might be right in saying it is red...it's not my place to judge," then either you are wrong, or you do not really believe what you are saying.

So to expect a true Christian to write a book that uplifts both Christianity and Buddhism (or the other way around, even) is preposterous. If such a book exists, then either the author's bias is incorrect, or the author simply does not believe it.

Whether you believe it or not, Christ claims to be the only way to Heaven, salvation, etc... So, naturally, any book comparing Christianity to any other religion (written accurately) MUST, of necessity, judge the other to be inferior. Ravi's book does not "attack" Buddhism, as many people believe, but simply reveals his bias. Whether or not Christianity or Buddhism are correct or not, is covered ad nauseum in countless other texts from both sides.

And anyone who is expecting Ravi to exhaustively cover both religions in a 6" x 6", 93-page book is a fool. It simply reads as a narrative/religious excercise by a devoted, intellegent Christian who has much experience in comparing other religions to Christianity. You cannot (should not) expect anything else.

Furthermore, I don't know why Buddhists are so upset...surely there are more caustic, derisive, and inaccurate texts than this little frivolity against Buddhism. Maybe these Buddhists are the equivalent of Christians who are outraged over The DaVinci Code.

Picture Jesus, Buddha and a prostitute in a boat together...sounds like the beggining of a joke.
To be sure, I really do agree with most of what the other reviewers have said. It's not meant to give an entire review of Christian thought or Buddhist thought. It gives you a glimpse of the Heart of it's founders though. It's simply Jesus and Buddha in a boat together. To be sure, Jesus's power is toned down a bit for the sake of the book sice he could have healed the prostitute right away.
What comes out so powerfully however is the transcending love of Christ. It was powerful the way Jesus loved this woman. He didn't just give her philosophy, he met the need of her soul.
Great book for Christians and non-christians.

This book was fundamentally flawed on many levels. The Buddha is actually portrayed as being somewhat egotistical, rule bound, and dogmatic. This goes against the basic tenets of Buddhism. The author seemed to be trying to humanize the Buddha, maybe forgetting that the Buddha never claimed Godhood. Although there is a disturbing kind of "I am a deity and you’re not" vibe going on that doesn't seem very Jesus like either. For example Jesus brings up the Buddha changing his mind and allowing females to become his followers. A real deity would never do that, except for maybe God…. "So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people," Exodus 32:14.
For me the author comes across as self-righteous and judgmental. But surprise, surprise because that does seem to be an issue with Christianity. Judgement is a central theme of this religion. God continually judges humanity, and humanity is made in the image of God. Maybe that is why Christians judge everyone, I don't know. But this religion is based on the ultimate judgment, whether people are worthy of salvation. Within Christianity there is this claim to compassion, and Christians at their best are a compassionate lot and many have done great good in this world. The Biblical words of Jesus are compassionate.
But it seems like the Buddha may have wanted to ask why does a compassionate, loving, daddy figure of a God who is all knowing and all forgiving condemn people to a fiery eternity in hell if you don't accept his son as your loving savior. That is the bottom line of Christianity. Repent oh ye sinners and be saved, accept Jesus as thy Lord and Savior or else your soul will be damned and burn in the fiery pits of hell for eternity. The ultimate compassion, the son that sacrifices everything for lowly humanity vs the ultimate sadist saying do it my way or you will be tortured for eternity. If these guys are going tit for tat, that might be a fair question for the Buddha to ask.
Amidst the sanctimonious drivel that was being passed off as storytelling I didn't hear the voice of Jesus or the voice of the Buddha, I heard an author with a point to prove. The main characters lacked both voice and accuracy according to the basic tenant of each religion. What really struck me was the young lady Priya had lived a life of repeated rape, violence, and despair. Now at the end of her life she is subjected to this? All of this overpowering prose (it is like drowning in cheap aftershave, it is just that bad) and debate with comments being made such as "Your whole body is like a gaping wound of the past" and "you end up doing what you want to do and not doing what you should do". So this naive young girl should have known better than to follow the boy to the city? Blame the victim much Ravi? The Buddha says "I can explain what this woman is going through". Because I am sure most people can really get what a life time of forced prostitution feels like. The author loses any pretext at compassion for this young lady as he desperately tries to prove Christianity is the one true religion. I can't imagine the Buddha or Jesus being as callous as they are portrayed.
As one who has followed the way of the Cross and studied the Dharma, I find this book to be offensive and somewhat repulsive all around. All religion is flawed in part because it is interpreted through the perception of humanity as we try to understand the divine and we are merely human. We are fundamentally flawed in many ways and we should stop judging each other’s religions and interpreting century old texts recorded by other humans as being absolute, black and white renditions of reality. I think a lot of us get that, but not this author. He is basically parading around naked on a big white horse telling to us to repent because the end is nigh.

I think that christianity and Buddhism are both beautiful pratice, but to me this book says a lot of christian behavior. When you take another faith an attempt to diminish its worth compared to your own, that shows a very shallow and hateful frame of mind. Buddhism is misrepresented by this author and book, and for those who seem to love this book i hope they know that ignorance does not defeat truth. Its very rare to find a Buddhist trying to tear down christianity, but unfortutanetly its common to see christianity seeking to tear down other systems of beleif.
I am not a buddhist, but i am reading and learning about buddhism, this book did nothing more than assure me that christianity does not walk the talk.

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.

First of all, Mr. Zacharias conveniently chose an unstable country as the representation of the Buddhist nation, then boldly made the vague and misleading statement of "how does one talk about eternal when both religion and riotous living argue that nothing is permanent?" The situation in Thailand is mostly factored by social and economic issues than religion. Secondly, the portrayal of 'Buddha' is misleading and incorrect. (Review from Chris Stager of Rochester, NY explained this in detail) At some point of the book, Buddha and Jesus had a dispute as to who came first; (which was becoming childish) then Buddha seemed a bit 'upset' that Jesus had called him by his earthly name 'Gautama' and proceed to explain that ever since his enlightenment, no one had dare use his earthly name. Mistake: an enlightened being transcends all superficial ideas that are related to ago such as name, birth date... Thirdly, Mr. Zacharias's ideas of `karma', `reincarnation', `nirvana' (or enlightenment) are half-fast. Mr. Zacharias had reduced the whole Buddhist idea to simple 'paying the debt' and 'creditors'. 'Paying the debt' is not the real goal of 'reincarnation' or 'rebirth' as Mr. Zacharias had Buddha put it, reaching 'nirvana' is. Furthermore, Mr. Zacharias misrepresent the Buddhist idea of "nonexistent of self" as erase of individuality; while Jesus insisted that human can be individuals but cannot be autonomous.
In my 32 years of reading classic and modern Chinese literature, I have never encountered such false portrayal of any Buddha. Mr. Zacharias's Buddha is a petty, self-righteous HUMAN, not an enlightened being. If I was a Buddhist, I'll be offended (although a true Buddhist will care less about it), if I was a Christian, I'll be embarrassed.

The book is short, interesting and flows pretty well with rather simple concepts so its easy to read.

If you are a Christian who believes everyone should be Christian, accept Christ and such you will like the book since it is essentially a "sales tool" intended to steer people away from Buddhism toward Christianity.

If you are agnostic, you might find the book interesting as it does touch on both faiths/religions/beliefs/whatever even if geared toward delivering the reader to Christ.

If you are Buddhist (like me) you will see it for what it is, accept that the author only wants to "save" people and probably means no harm.

This is much more like a talk between a Christian follower with a mimic Buddhist, anything but a talk between Jesus and Buddha as it is claimed to be. Such an attempt is not wise. It is certainly painting a negative image on Buddha while not doing Jesus any good because ignorant criticism on Buddhism invites contempt on Christians. Dr. Z.'s devotion is not necessarily perfect Christian. His knowledge about Buddhism does not even touch even the most basic elementary level. According to Buddhism, reincarnation, a karmic process of owing and paying, is one painful fact of all the sentient beings suffer in the 6 realms of reincarnation, not the purpose of Buddhism, not even Buddha's theory.

In the age when every religion can claim itself to be superior to others, their God is more powerful or superior than other God? What should we do? Well, for one thing I respect Buddha a lot. Buddha said for every doctrine of all the religions, including Buddhism itself, one must exercise his best judgment before accepting and following it. Fair? I believe most people should think it is a fair law. To me, every one who appreciates Jesus after exercising his best judgment should also appreciate Buddha or Buddhism, if he is exposed to Buddhism sufficiently.

Some Christians believe Buddha is a human being while Jesus is a divine being. Well, if we use our flesh eyes to look at both Jesus and Buddha, they both were human being with a human body and human flesh. If we can look at them with our wisdom eyes, they both are divine, well superior to our human beings. Now, many Christians may disagree, Jesus has a lot supernatural capabilities while Buddha does not. Well, this is because most Christians have not been well informed or simply disbelieve the Buddha's count-parts. Buddha showed many of these capabilities in much more incredible scale and nature, even many Buddhists are able to do the same since ancient time to nowadays. This is only a matter of believe-it-or-not. On the other hand, Buddha purposely downplayed these capabilities and even reprimanded any focusing on these capabilities from some of his followers. According to Buddha, the supernatural capabilities are not judgmental criteria of good and evil or divine and non-divine as devils may have the same capabilities. Buddha even said every sentient being is able to possess the same power through correct practicing. However, they have nothing to do with liberation. Liberation starts with a right view, right belief and right thinking. There are many ways (typically 84000) leading to liberation. Some ways emphasize on one's own efforts. There are many, however, emphasize on the helps and rescues from Buddha, particularly like Pureland (biggest Buddhist school in Chinese Buddhism) and Tibetan Buddhism. There are 8 mahayana schools (the Greater Vessels) and 2 theraveda schools (hinaya, the Smaller Vessels). All 8 mahayana schools accept Pureland practice though some Buddhists prefer their own efforts. Dr. Z.'s saying that "Buddhism is based on one's own effort" is just his partial observation on the theraveda parts in the Buddhism where Buddha focused mainly on explaining the principle of darma. Dr. Z's conclusion about "no-self" is clearly lacking the correct understanding. It is a big topical that I can not exhaust in this review.

In conclusion, I don't feel appropriate at all for Dr. Z's understanding about Buddhism. It is close to ignorance. Any one who likes to do the comparative study on Buddhism, should at least at the minimum scale, read some typical sutras from all 3 major schools, the Small Vessel, the Greater Vessel, the Diamond Vessel, not just dabbing lightly on the Smaller Vessel alone. Attention must be paid to the volume of Buddha's sutras which is 100 times larger than the Bible and covering much wider range for the issues and problems concerning liberation.

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

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

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

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

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

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