The Lotus And The Cross

[camerata]

The Lotus and the Cross is the sleaziest bit of writing I've come across in a long time. It purports to be an imaginary conversation between Jesus and the Buddha but is in reality the most blatant Christian propaganda, authored by a Christian Evangelist and published by an evangelical publishing company. He claims to have done his research in India and SE Asia and "presented the ideas fairly." But he makes his purpose clear in the introduction when he says, "Jesus and Buddha cannot both be right." Laughably, he he also says, "Our conclusions must be in keeping with Truth that can be tested. May the God of all truth lead you to the Truth that sets you free indeed."

The Buddha is set up right from the beginning. The encounter takes place in Thailand, a place where "strangers make you feel very welcome, even when one may have just cheated you into buying a fake, name-brand watch." The author sets the scene: "I see a monk walking in the distance , a bowl for begging in his hand, but I also see a man who spends most of his day waylaying tourists and seducing them with pictures to come and visit a nearby brothel." He then goes on about prostitution, AIDS and sex tourists, carefully pointing out that 95% of the population are Buddhists. He tells the true story of a sad and exploited prostitute called Priya, who got infected with HIV but continued to work and ultimately committed suicide. It's clear that her tragedy is due to the failure of Buddhism.

The conversation starts with Jesus, the Buddha, Priya and a boatman taking a boat ride on the Chaophraya River in Bangkok. Jesus speaks to Priya for the first four pages and, when the Buddha finally gets a word in, Jesus says, "I was wondering how long you'd remain silent." This sets the tone for the whole encounter. The Buddha is depicted rather like an adolescent who's full of himself and thinks he knows all the answers, but doesn't. However, he is frequently evasive or lost for words, and has to concede points to Jesus, who is depicted as a wise and patient father.

Jesus is caring and always calls Priya by her name. The Buddha on the other hand, addresses her as "Woman" and refers to her as "this woman." His first comment to her, about karma, is, "Woman, you don't realize it, but everything you've lived through is the fruit of all that you yourself have sown. You were not free from debt when you were born, and you won't be free from debt when you die." So here we have a Christian's idea of karma as a debt to be repaid put into the Buddha's mouth. Priya, it turns out, is totally confused about karma and says it's like "glue on the hands with nowhere to wash." Jesus agrees. And this isn't the end of it. Later on, when a desperate Priya asks how she can repay this debt, Jesus assures her that he's paid the debt for her already.

There's more nonsense when the Buddha explains to a confused Priya that she will be reborn rather than reincarnated. In fact, the portrayal of Priya is totally false. The average Thai isn't concerned with anatta or doctrine. The author is deliberately mixing up the doctrine with popular Buddhism, which is more like reincarnation and isn't confusing at all. But the Buddha labours on... "I have a technical term for all this: dependent origination. But that's far too complex to go into right now." Then the Buddha gets really petulant and insists that Priya not be allowed to call him "Gautama" because he is now enlightened. However, he allows Jesus to because he respects him so much.

Jesus starts quibbling over whose teaching came first and ends up threatening the Buddha with, "So time ought not to be a factor here, if you don't mind. Those who define truth by the calendar run afoul of Him who created time." The Buddha of course agrees with this brilliant logic. And it gets worse. When they discuss renunciation, the boatman chimes in with, "Yesterday's paper had a picture of one of the monks in the monastery on a cell phone!" The Buddha's response is, "Please! Let's stay on course and not get into all that."

The Buddha's only comment on nirvana is that books about it are confusing. Jesus later defines it as "meditating yourself into oblivion." Jesus insists that if the Buddha really was omniscient, he wouldn't have had to change his mind about some things (ordination of children without parental consent, ordination of women) at the urging of his disciples. It continues like this with Buddhist teaching misrepresented and the Buddha portrayed as an illogical and uncertain fool. Jesus invites the Buddha to feel Priya's arm, but he refuses - presumably because of the vinaya but it seems like he is afraid of AIDS. They discuss how their disciples don't follow their teachings. Jesus claims in his case it's because they have forgotten God, but for Buddhists it's because the Buddha took God away from them. Because they have no god they turn to superstition.

The Buddha admits that he gave his disciples no written word as an abiding authority. When Jesus asks why, he replies, "Because... everything is impermanent."

Jesus: Even that statement? Is that impermanent too?

Buddha: I think... I'll have to think on that. I have a terrible feeling I'm backing myself into a corner here.

Three paragraphs later Jesus has "proved" that there is no permanent truth if everything is impermanent! From here on in Jesus is lecturing and the Buddha is in defensive mode or even agreeing. Jesus reiterates that Buddhist rebirth means being reborn "in another consciousness and in a different person." Wrong! Jesus then defines the Triple Gem for Priya:

"First, the Buddha. You personally no longer exist, nor will she. Nonexistence is the first gem.

The Dhamma. The teaching has no eternal Word to preserve, no absolute to be guided by. That's the second gem.

The Sangha. The community consists of those who believe no self exists and move toward not desiring anything, including the friendship of others. That's the third gem."

The conversation ends with the cheapskate Buddha saying he has no money to pay the boatman. Priya invites Jesus and the Buddha to her home. Jesus accepts, the Buddha declines. Then there is an Epilogue which summarises why Christianity is better than Buddhism.

Apart from the Buddha's words being mostly a Christian view of Buddhism, there are other problems with this book. The Christian arguments are based entirely on the unprovable premise that God exists. No mention is made of the fact that all the benefits of Buddhism can be had in this life without recourse to anything unprovable. The setting of a discussion with a woman who is already dead is highly favourable to Christianity since most of what Christianity offers comes after death. Jesus claims that everybody needs God, but the whole point of Buddhism is that there is no evidence of God so we have to do things ourselves.

One thing this book brought home to me more than ever is how hard it is to explain Buddhism to anybody (and especially to children). If it's so difficult to understand, and the majority of Buddhists don't practise it properly, its real benefits seem to be only available to a tiny fraction of humanity.

[suegha]

As a Christian I really dislike this sort of propaganda. What's the point? Neither view proffered is anything approaching the truth! I suppose the 'saving grace' of this type of rubbish is that it will be mostly read, and agreed with, by those already entrenched in their views. So hopefully very little effect on those sincerly searching for truth.

Let's just put it down to indicitive of human nature rather than Christianity!

[seonai]

I can't believe anyone could write such drivel ... Shocking. Buddhism is the coolest 'religion' because it does not involve the belief in a 'God' and asks you to question your own mind - surely a good thing... ?

[garro]

I think that those who feel the need to slight another person's faith must be very insecure in their own beliefs.

If all you can do to promote your own faith is to ridicule another it doesn't say much for it.

The argument that we must be right because they do this or that is very weak.

Isn't it funny how it always seems to be Buddhists that are criticised?

It is so much easier to target them than other less tolerant faiths.

I always find it annoying how Christians have no problem posting on Buddhist' websites about how Buddhists are getting it wrong.

Yet I doubt that a Buddhist on a Christian website would get much of a hearing.

Sorry if this sounds intolerant but I'm a getting a bit bored with hearing what Christians think about Buddhism.

Edited October 31, 2007 by garro

[Brucenkhamen]

The belief that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong produces Dukkha in your life and in the lives of those around you.

The belief that you belong to God and anyone who disagrees with you is hoodwinked by the Devil produces Dukkha in your life and in the lives of those around you.

The belief that you must convince everyone around you that they must believe what you believe or they'll be damned to eternal hel_l produces Dukkha in your life and in the lives of those around you.

I feel annoyance as well as pity for people who think the way of the author of this book, I try to convert it to compassion, with mixed results.

[Plus]

What if there IS God?

From discussions on another thread I gathered that Buddha was non-commital on the issue and that for the vast majority of people Buddhism would work regardless.

Christians on the other hand claim to be in very close connection with God himself, every single one of them. I bet 99.9% of the time they are not online and simply fooling themselves and everyone around.

Which way is better? Buddhists are great at making excuses too.

[Brucenkhamen]

What if there IS God?

If there is a God I'm not sure he'd be too happy with people distributing sleazy booklets in his name, let alone some of the other things people do in his name.

[madjbs]

I wonder how the book would have turned out if it was written by a buddhist monk writting the part of the Lord Buddha. Certainly would be more interesting.

[camerata]

I wonder how the book would have turned out if it was written by a buddhist monk writting the part of the Lord Buddha. Certainly would be more interesting.

It certainly would have been fairer. What I thought was particularly deceitful about this book was that it talks about Truth in the preface but then proceeds to compare Christianity and Buddhism in terms of what they offer rather than in terms of truths that can be proven.

[Plus]

The outcome was predetermined, the author only needed to find a dummy to play Buddha's part. Eventually he did it himself but even if he gave that part to anyone else it wouldn't have changed anything. I wouldn't even bother trying to present Buddhism under these conditions.

"What if there is God" comment was addressed to a poster above who said Buddhism is cool because it's Godless.

[suegha]

Like I alluded to earlier, please do not judge all Christians based on this drivel! Not all Christians (me!) are like that.

[thaibebop]

The Author is an American isn't he?

Edited November 4, 2007 by camerata
Removed lengthy quote.

[camerata]

The author is from India. Currently living in the USA.

[khaojao]

What if there IS God?

From discussions on another thread I gathered that Buddha was non-commital on the issue and that for the vast majority of people Buddhism would work regardless.

Christians on the other hand claim to be in very close connection with God himself, every single one of them. I bet 99.9% of the time they are not online and simply fooling themselves and everyone around.

Which way is better? Buddhists are great at making excuses too.

The Buddha never said God or Gods didn't exist. He just said that their existence will not free you from your own sufferings...

As in all religions, there comes ppl with different levels of understandings. Understandings that are correct to that person's knowledge of the Truth. If a mango cannot be forced to ripen, how can you force someone to mature spiritually?

Let not what others think affect your own spiritual quest so easily, regardless of your choice of religion. Taste the truth for yourself and decide.

[chownah]

Khaojao,

Can you find the text where the Buddha mentions God (with a capital letter) at all....I don't think he ever did.

Chownah

[khaojao]

no capital Gs...sorry i didn't realize we were so particular about spelling.

EDIT : in any case, i think the discussion of Gods/gods/God/god in buddhism is mentioned in another thread.

Edited November 6, 2007 by khaojao

[Plus]

Yes, there's another thread specifically about God and Buddhism.

I was just commenting on this:

Buddhism is the coolest 'religion' because it does not involve the belief in a 'God'...

I think it oversimplifies the things though could be technically correct. I certainly wouldn't start presenting Buddhism as "no God" religion.

[chutai]

I think it oversimplifies the things though could be technically correct. I certainly wouldn't start presenting Buddhism as "no God" religion.

There's no oversimplification at all. There is no God in Buddhism ( a divinity, something more than you and I). Buddhism is a process of self-discovery of ones true self which entails no reliance on any external power, higher being or blind faith.

It's absolutely right to say that Buddhism is a "no God" religion. If Buddhism is a religion at all that is. But that's less clearly a defined topic of discussion.

Edited November 7, 2007 by chutai

[Plus]

It really belongs to another thread, but what about millions of Thais who treat Buddha as God for all practical reasons?

Buddhism is big, I doubt anyone knows everything there's is to know about it. You should always leave room for different interpretations.

[chutai]

It really belongs to another thread, but what about millions of Thais who treat Buddha as God for all practical reasons?

This may be true. However, to deitise Shayamuni is to miss the point ,i.e that he was a mortal man who reached enlightenment by his own efforts. Not that to treat him as an elevated, Godlike being doesn't sometimes reveal a seeking spirit ; but is ultimately to be ignorant of the fact that we all have the potential to awaken the same enlightnment within us --that is not given from outside of ourselves by some mysterious transcendent power. As one Mahayana Buddhist master has put it (I'm sure that Theravadans would echo the same in essence) :

"never seek any of the teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha or the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of the universe outside of yourself."

Buddhism is big, I doubt anyone knows everything there's is to know about it. You should always leave room for different interpretations.

How is what's written open to interpretation ? If Shayamuni Buddha - at it's most positive - answered the question whether there was a God or not was irrelevant to the question of eliminating suffering, then that's exactly what he meant. We should also remember that in the early Sutras he was addressing questions posed by those still adhering to and/or influenced by the pantheistic monotheism of the Brahmans.

Buddhism is, and always has been, a Godless faith. Unless you can show otherwise ?

[EastSaxCol]

n/a really.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Happy Hammer

[Plus]

How is what's written open to interpretation?

....

Buddhism is, and always has been, a Godless faith. Unless you can show otherwise ?

1. Buddhists can successfully explain away ANY action, however abhorrent. Example: "killing communists leads to enlightenment".

2. There are references in that other thread to Buddhist texts talking about God, and I would be wary about declaring all millions of Thai Buddhists worshiping Buddha as God plus hundreds of thousands of monks who taught them how to do it dead wrong.

I say that this question isn't really settled one way or another, if you want to investigate further - please post in that thread.

[chutai]

Buddhists can successfully explain away ANY action, however abhorrent. Example: "killing communists leads to enlightenment".

Quite frankly , that's nonsense. Where did you find such a example ?

To explain "ANY action" can only be found in examining the delusions of an untransformed mind. But that's not the same thing as condoning killing.

There are references in that other thread to Buddhist texts talking about God, and I would be wary about declaring all millions of Thai Buddhists worshiping Buddha as God plus hundreds of thousands of monks who taught them how to do it dead wrong.

I've looked at the question of how many times Shakyamuni Buddha refers to God in the Sutras before. In what few references that there are , he remains characteristically negative on this subject, . So I don't see any reason to trawl through any other thread to be honest.

As for some Thai - or any other persons - deitising the Buddha, then maybe we need to look at what various Acharns - who have reached a similar elevated status in Thai society - have taught as well as Shakyamuni himself. That is, to look beyond superficial appearances.

"So, then, owing to the creation of a supreme deity men will become murderers , thieves, unchaste liars, slanderers, abusive babblers, covetous, malicious, and perverse in view. Thus for those who fall back on the creation of a god as the essential reason, there is neither desire nor effort nor necessity to do this deed or abstain from that deed."

Majjhima Nikaya

Quoted from, The Buddha and His Teachings, Narada p.229.

Best wishes.

[B Fuddled]

"No God, no Brahma, can be called

The maker of this Wheel of Life;

Just empty phenomena roll on

Dependent on conditions all".

(Visuddhimagga/Path of Purification XIX)

The Visuddhimagga ("The path to purity") is a Theravada Buddhist commentary written by Buddhaghosa approximately in 430 CE in Sri Lanka. It is considered the most important Theravada text outside of the Tipitaka canon of scriptures

[garro]

I think that it's a shame that a thread which started out as a serious criticism of a very flawed book has turned into a thread about gods. There is a perfectly good other thread, about Buddhism and gods, where people bothered with this subject can lecture to their heart's content.

Edited November 9, 2007 by garro

[Plus]

Buddhists can successfully explain away ANY action, however abhorrent. Example: "killing communists leads to enlightenment".

Quite frankly , that's nonsense. Where did you find such a example ?

That was during anti-communist drive thirty years ago. More recently monks justified killing of suspected drug dealers, apparently to people who initially were not very comfortable with the idea.

To explain "ANY action" can only be found in examining the delusions of an untransformed mind. But that's not the same thing as condoning killing.

I'm not sure I follow you. Does it make a big difference if a person gets murdered as a result of "explaining any action" or "condoning killing"?

I didn't mean dissecting someone's mind to find his internal reasons for this or that, I meant justifying, and thus "blessing", these actions as done by monks, supposedly from Buddhist perpective.

I agree with Garro about taking God discussion to the appopriate thread. It's not very difficult, is it?