Out reach!?
This week, precisely Tuesday & Wednesday, I finally had a chance to stay off campus the first time this summer (Yup, sad for me). My friend had a business trip to Memphis and it’s quite a drive (5 hours); he invited me a long so that he wouldn’t have to be in the car by himself for 5 hours. During those 5 hours, I also had a chance to finish a book, a very small book that I’ve had since last semester — The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha by Ravi Zacharias. I’ve had some thoughts and questions since I started the book, and I certainly had more after finishing it. Before I talk about them, I’d like to share a story I saw on facebook, the story that made me decide to write this entry.
Tiger and BuddhistAn old story tells of a woodsman who lived in the mountains of North Korea. While working in the forest one day, he was attacked by a huge tiger. The woodsman seized the tiger by the tail, and the tiger began turning around in circles, trying to get his teeth into the woodsman.
A Buddhist monk, out for a walk, was attracted by the noise and sauntered over. The woodsman, upon seeing the monk, cried out, “Please take my ax there and kill this tiger before I am eaten alive.”
The monk, lowering his eyes and piously folding his hands, replied, “I am sorry but I cannot kill the tiger. You see, I am a Buddhist and as a Buddhist all life is sacred to me, be it insect, human, or animal.” The woodsman answered, “Fortunately, I am not blessed with your belief so would you please take my place at the tail of the tiger and let me kill the beast.”
The monk agreed and they exchanged places. The woodsman then walked over, picked up his ax, placed it on his shoulder, and nonchalantly strolled off into the forest. The Buddhist monk, very much alarmed, cried out, “Please, come back and kill this tiger as you promised or else I will be devoured.”
The woodsman’s parting reply was: “I was so impressed by your example that I have become a convert to your belief.”
First of all, I want to be clear that I have nothing against this joke. I think it’s great, it’s hilarious. I myself often tell stereotyped jokes which make fun of religions, races, and yes, blond is counted as a race in these jokes 
(Call me racist all you want, but I can actually careless about the differences between races and have fun). However, some people may not like the jokes I tell, because they contain sensitive issues that people talk and fight about everyday, and there will be people who do not enjoy this particular joke, and there will be people who do not enjoy this particular joke who are Buddhists. Would the un-favored readers think of Adventists, or Christians in general, as judgemental people who don’t know anything they’re talking about? You may say the person who posted it meant to share with his or her friend, but this person isn’t in my friend list. One of my friends favorited this joke and it showed up on the highlight column. After all, this is not such a big issue. This is meant to be a joke, and no offense to the joke’s author, but people may only think of him or her as a flup-flie-hippie teenager.
Why do I have to bring this joke up before talking about my questions to the book, or to Ravi Zacharias? I want to acknowledge that even the most slightly thing can offend someone (I did learn this the hard way, btw). In this case, what I’m about to question here is not a slightly thing, not even close to a slightly thing!
- Instead of a random joke posted on facebook, this is a serious book, published and trademarked, and it’s even on Amazon
. - The author is not a “flup-flie-hippie teenager”, but Zacharias, a pretty well-known minister.
- Last but not least, since it’s published, it may not be suitable for everyone, it is available for everyone: Christians, non-Christians, Buddhists, Athiests, etc.
This book was originally recommended to me by Pastor David Asscherick to learn about idolatry. I enjoyed reading it, and I learnt from it. Even with some disagreements to what Zacharias writes, I still respect them. However, as Zacharias himself pointed out, respecting someone’s right to be wrong doesn’t make the belief right. Here are some thoughts:
- This book is written in a dialog format. It’s an imaginary dialog that Zacharias has between some characters, but mostly Jesus, Buddha. From the conversation, Zacharias clearly stood on Jesus’ side (Buddha’s tone is always afraid, and confused, etc.). I myself truely believe in Jesus the Savior, but I thought to myself “If you write a book trying to compare two things, you better be neutral, be unbias. In addition, what is your goal in writing this book? If you’re trying to show the readers how great Christianity is, itself is great already, you don’t have to trample on other beliefs to do so. But if you’re trying to show Buddhists or other believers why Christianity is so great, you’re setting yourself up for failure by standing on a particular side.” My credibility for Ravi Zacharias went down significantly after reading this book, but this is not the only reason.
- On page 26 of the book, Zacharias, in the roll of Buddha, made a statement about not letting others call him by name (Gautama). There are 2 things that came to my mind right after reading this. (1) Living 15 years in a country where Buddhism is the most popular religion, I lost count how many times I heard people call “Buddha Gautama”. Alright, the word “Buddha” is there, but read on. (2) Religion and culture can’t be taken a part. In another word, the religion is affected significantly by the culture, and the culture is also affected significantly by the religion[a]. In Japanese, it is very common to add the word “San” after someone’s name. It’s just a prefix like “Mr/Ms/Mrs”. In some culture, there are also prefixes for teachers, lawyers, etc. Here, “Buddha” is just another prefix.
- On page 29, Zacharias, again in the roll of Buddha, made this statement after Jesus told the story about Job: “This must’ve happened long before my time, because I haven’t heard of Job.” Notice what I bolded there? Buddha lived in the time of Daniel [the prophet]. Is there not a possiblity that Buddha at least heard about Job? Zacharias also trapped himself by saying “This must’ve happened long before my time”. If we can know the story of Job today, why couldn’t Buddha?
To my knowledge (Zacharias also mentioned about this in the book), after being enlightened, Buddha claimed that he could see the past (I’m not sure about the future). The statement “This must’ve happened long before my time, because I haven’t heard of Job.” was copied straight from the book. It’s inside quotes!
. I put myself in the boots of a Buddha believer, who believes in someone who could see the past, I found this statement to be (1) Unlogical and (2, mostly just writing style) Zacharias is just making stuff up and put it in Buddha’s mouth. Remember, if Zacharias chose to risk putting his writing in a dialog format for a greater effect, he himself knows better that he has to be very careful and sensitive about what he puts down or it’s going to have a negative effect. - Throughout the book, Zacharias (of course in the roll of Buddha, this book is just purely in conversation format) claims that Buddhists don’t have the concept (he used the world “dimension”) of praying. Woooo! I can’t remember how many times I got yelled at for disturbing my aunt (Yes! A hardcore Buddhist) or my parents (They are Buddhists, too) during prayers.
- Zacharias also repeatedly states that in Buddha’s teaching, there is no God. But latter, he himself says that Buddha says he knows more that God. I don’t know where he did his research, and where he learnt his reasoning, but that does not work.
I can call myself a Christian, and I have no doubt in Jesus’ teachings. However, coming from a background that didn’t really care for religions, I have respects for other beliefs on my long journey to finding Christianity. Borrowing Zacharias’ words, respecting someone’s right to be wrong doesn’t make the belief right. Also, as said above, one doesn’t have to step on others to push oneself up. As a Christian, my respect for Zacharias, a well-know Christian, dropped significantly after reading this book, that is — I understand about Christianity, and do have a similar belief with him. What would non-Christians think when all they see is someone trying to trample on other beliefs with stuck-up minds? Wonder why so many people hate (Yes! Hate, not dislike) Christianity huh? Talking about out reach!?
- The way people talk, the way people dress, etc. Example: dancing is not so popular within the Adventists, therefore you don’t hear or see popular Adventist dancers, but popular Adventist singers, Adventist athletes are there. [↩]
This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
“Throughout the book, Zacharias (of course in the roll of Buddha, this book is just purely in conversation format) claims that Buddhists don’t have the concept (he used the world “dimension”) of praying. Woooo! I can’t remember how many times I got yelled at for disturbing my aunt (Yes! A hardcore Buddhist) or my parents (They are Buddhists, too) during prayers”
I kinda see from both sides, the concepts of prayer in Buddhism and Christianity are a little different. In Buddhism, people don’t pray before every meal, or together as a group before worshiping, or outloud in public. What Buddhists consider as “prayer” is more like what Christians consider as “meditate”, where they focus and turn toward their believes, try to find peace in their mind, set aside from the world. ( as when you talked about disturbing our hardcore Buddhist aunt !!!:). SO maybe that’s what Zacharias meant, I agree and disagree with him at the same time
Sister, I didn’t know you’re still reading these.
.
Yes, I acknowledge that there is an idea of meditating in Buddhism, but it is a part from what they call prayers.
Let me refresh your memory: Before going for the VISA interview, you prayed (mom probably asked you to do so) for success. Many times before you took a test, you prayed for good grades. Etc.
I don’t think that is what you, me, or anyone would call meditating. I don’t think you have the patient to sit down and meditate for a couple hours
There is a phrase that you always said as a child: “Cầu trời cầu phật!” I’m not afraid to say that growing in a Buddhist family, you somehow caught the idea of prayers, and of a super-natural power.
I wasn’t saying you wrong, but you used the word “disturbing” made me think of people meditating, I misunderstood at first. I don’t remember actually pray..PRAY. It was more like hanging on to a hope in your heart. Buddhism believes in fair and justice, “o hien gap lanh”, “an o co duc, troi phat phu ho”
“Cau troi cau phat” can be used in a formal, and also can be used in a very casual way when you talk to people, tell other people what you’re hoping for or joking around with your friend, my friend said, “Cau troi hom nay ba co sinh bi cho’ can (beaten by a dog)” Is that a prayer?
Most religion is to give human hope, and strength to endure in one way or another. My whole point was… it’s a different concept and I truly respect all.
Agree with the post except point 3. There are millions of people even today don’t know the story about Job so I think your argument is weak there. I have great respect for Buddhism’s teaching, to be calm, forgiving, unattached to the material world…great principles, Jesus’ teaching under a different name. All religions have at least some truth, but so many believers of different faith think that “I’m right and therefore you’re wrong”
STEVE!!
Hey, interesting read. I knew you were a thinker and this article certainly reinforces that idea. I do have some thoughts though in reading your thoughts (I’ll be addressing your points 1-4 in the same order):
1) “But if you’re trying to show Buddhists or other believers why Christianity is so great, you’re setting yourself up for failure by standing on a particular side.”
If you are comparing two different worldviews to only compare their beliefs then I agree that you need to be impartial as you make your case for both. However, you mentioned that his book is not intended to be a comparison but rather, if Mr. Zacharias is trying to show why Christianity is “so great”, then he would need to be biased. To put it another way, if I were trying to convince you why you need a Hyundai instead of a Honda, it wouldn’t benefit my cause if I only gave you the factory specifics of each company; I would need to give you my own verdict as to why one is better than another.
That is what I believe Mr. Zacharias’ goal: not only to compare the two worldviews but to see how they agree and disagree with each other with a bias towards one side.
2) As you know I’m not Buddhist but from what I know, Buddha means “enlightened one.” This title couldn’t be as common as you make it by comparing it to the Japanese “-san”. Could I call you “Buddha Steve”? The comparison to Japanese that I see here is “-sama” (which is the a title of honor that isn’t given to just anybody).
The idea I think is that Gautama didn’t merely want to be referred to by that name because he had reached that state of enlightenment.
3) I’d have to see the context of that statement so I can’t say say anything one way or another but, from Buddha’s history, it might seem unlikely that he heard of Job. His birth is placed variously from 624bc- 447bc and it is said he lived a protective life in part because of his father. When he did see the harsh reality of life he spent his time traveling through eastern India in search of truth.
The story of Job is one of the oldest in Jewish scripture but the reason that Buddha might not have heard of it is because during his lifetime, the Jewish nation was in exile and captivity both in Assyria and Babylon and their writings were not as distributed as they are today. Secondly, we can conclude that Gautama had no prior knowledge of Job because his teachings do not address points made in the story of Job to account for human suffering nor does it reflect it.
4) I agree with Lee, lol.
5) Maybe he was referring to the Theravada form of Buddhism instead of the Mahayana branch. Either way, I understand that Buddhism, (as originally taught by the Buddha and the school of the elders) does not refer at all to a personal deity or deities and that is why he might have said that they don’t believe in “God” (in the personal way that monotheistic religions describe it). What is your understanding of “God” in the Buddhist way?
Finally, I have to agree with you that it’s not right to be “stuck-up” about our beliefs and put other beliefs down to make yourself feel better because that’s not right. I can speak as a Christian when I say that sadly, Christianity and religion in general is given a bad name when that tactic is made. Change however, can and will come to this practice. OK, I’m sleepy now. Good read!
Agree with Nelson on point 5.
If you read the history of Buddhism, you’ll see that Buddha never claimed himself as God, He was just very well respected with his teachings, and insights about life and human’s trials, sufferings. After hundreds of years, people still followed his teachings, and respected him so much that they started to worship him, and the language, that people used over time, confused between “Buddha”, “God” or “Gautama”.
TODAY, yes at this time….ONLY Southeast Asian Buddhism believes Buddha is God, ….other countries in Asia, (around the middle east area, like India) STILL referred Buddha as the “great teacher of all being” or “universal teacher”
“Zacharias also repeatedly states that in Buddha’s teaching, there is no God.”
Maybe what Zacharias meant was actually “the teachings of Buddha”, not whether Buddha does or does not acknowledge there’s a God,not the religion as a whole.
If you just look at what Buddha had taught, and nothing else…really Buddha never once mentioned God in his teachings. To get extra credit for my world religion class, I read “Thich Nhat Hanh” also known as “the heart of Buddha’s teaching”, it’s just pure, basic teachings of Buddha and it’s all about how we should let go, and not be obsessed with material things, and a lot of other great insights, but completely different from the the Bible, where there’s a loving, almighty God,…etc
Wow. This page is going to be long!
1. To Nelson’s idea of being bias. I understand what you’re trying to say, and it sounds good, too. But in reality, from personal experience, here’s what happening in the other party/person’s mind: “You think your belief is great? My belief is great, too. If you stand on your point, I’m standing on my point. God has blessed you tons, Buddha has blessed me lots!”. These were my thoughts when some so-called Christian approached me unsensitively. In another word, you can’t prove to someone that this or that is great simply through your experience, your thoughts or your feelings about it, especially when religion, or belief is a personal thing and everyone will have a very different experience.
Let me put it in your term. You may find your Hyundai to be great, but I love my Honda, too. I’ve gotten a great deal out of it. It’s good on milage and the machine never fails me, or at least not yet. Why then should I consider risking my comfort and switch over to your Hyundai?
– If you notice, I wrote that Buddha’s tone in the book was always afraid, confused… If you were a Buddhist who has great respect for that Buddha, what would you think? “My teacher claimed to be a wise man, your Teacher also stated his knowledge. Why should mine be so stupid in front of yours?”. Zacharias can’t use the idea of how much greater Jesus is until after he has proven it.
2. @Nelson: As you pointed out yourself, “Buddha” is not a name, but a general world to call someone who is supposed to have been enlightened. No, you cannot call me “Buddha Steve” because I don’t supposed I’m enlightened, nor can you call me “Dr. Luu”, because I don’t have a doctrine, at least not yet. I can’t call you “Dr. Fernadez” either, can I?
Let’s take an example, people don’t bust into class and call their teachers by first name do they? In highschool, people call “Mr.”, “Ms”, or “Ms”. You rarely hear any “Dr.” in highschool even some of them have their Ph.D’s. The point I’m trying to make is this: In certain environments, you don’t call people by first names. I don’t believe you ran around calling Dr. Bauer “Steve”.
Only less than 1% of the world’s population has a Ph.D, the title “Dr.” is not so common either, but that doesn’t make Dr. anymore special than merely a title, so is “Buddha”!
– In this book, Buddha Gautama let Jesus (Jesus never had an official title did he!?) call him by name because Gautama believed that Jesus has reached the stage of being enlightened.
3. To my knowledge (Zacharias also mentioned about this in the book), after being enlightened, Buddha claimed that he could see the past (I’m not sure about the future). The statement “This must’ve happened long before my time, because I haven’t heard of Job.” was copied straight from the book. It’s inside quotes!
. I put myself in the boots of a Buddha believer, who believes in someone who could see the past, I found this statement to be (1) Unlogical and (2, mostly just writing style) Zacharias is just making stuff up and put it in Buddha’s mouth. Remember, if Zacharias chose to risk putting his writing in a dialog format for a greater effect, he himself knows better that he has to be very careful and sensitive about what he puts down or it’s going to have a negative effect.
4. @Le: A lot of people who sincerely go to Buddha temples to pray for safety, for happiness, etc. I know mom does for us all the time. The difference between praying and hoping is just a very fine line. When you pray to God and ask for safety, do you hope that you will be safe? If someone is just hoping, he or she won’t have to go all the way to the temple to show their sincere. People go to the temples because they do believe in a higher power.
. Have you ever heard your friends around here saying “Pray for storm!…”, or “Pray for snow!…”, “… so we won’t have school tomorrow?” Are they sincere prayers? It’s one of the very minor thing that people just sometimes say it and don’t mean it.
Quoting your “Cau troi hom nay ba co sinh bi cho’ can (beaten by a dog)”, fully translated as “I hope the teacher got beaten by a dog”, man, that’s just wrong. I never did that in my school life
5. In this one, I was actually paying more attention to his line of reasoning. I don’t think Zacharias can just put a blind fold on the readers so that they forget about “Buddha never claim the existance of a God”, and then put the idea of “Buddha claims to know more than God”. I can’t say “I’ve never read any book in my life but my favorite is ‘Steps to Chirst’.” That is just un-logical.
I am stepping aside from the discussion on this comments, but I believe that the correct way to influence people of other religions is to live what you believe and find similarities between your religions.
I believe that the commandments stand out for purer beliefs such as love, justice, righteousness, and those ‘purer beliefs’ are common ground in a lot of the religions of the world.
I find myself a bit unacquainted with Buddhism, but as I understand, this are some of their beliefs.
1. To refrain from taking life (non-violence towards sentient life forms)
2. To refrain from taking that which is not given (not committing theft)
3. To refrain from sensual (including sexual) misconduct
4. To refrain from lying (speaking truth always)
5. To refrain from intoxicants which lead to loss of mindfulness (specifically, drugs and alcohol)
And with such beliefs, there is a lot of common ground, and lots of opportunities to outreach.
PS: Interesting post & Comments.
I think you didn’t get my point…. I did not say that Buddhists were not sincere. How often do most Buddhists go to the Buddha temples to pray? (once a month?, twice a year?, or once a year?) Perhaps you can ask, growing up how many times A YEAR did you go the Buddha temple? I know even the Buddhists who can only go once a year… they are very very sincere, i never doubt that, so for those people…is it more like holding a hope in their heart rather than physically praying everyday, before every meal ..etc.
What I said was it’s really just the difference the concepts…
First of all, your two objects of comparison are not equivalent. You are talking about a Christian who follow the guide lines versus a Buddhist who don’t. There are so-called Christians who, get this, don’t pray at all!!!. Look at our aunt, a true Buddhist! Please don’t tell me she goes to the temple once a year. Remember how long she prays every time she burns the incense (thắp nhang)? I believe she burns incense at least 3 times a day, just at home. Who knows what she does at the temple.
Second, like Pastor Nelson Fernadez
said, Zacharias probably refers to Theravada (Đại Thừa), which is a minority (at least not as big as Mahayana — Tiểu Thừa) group of Buddhist whose belief is a bit different. The point is: Buddhists do believe in praying to a higher power (Zacharias claims Buddhists don’t believe in prayers). Just because someone prays less doesn’t mean he or she doesn’t believe in praying to a higher power.
Example: Muslims get on their knees and hands, pray to the same God we worship, at least 5 times a day (1) fajr — early morning-before sunrise (2) zhuhr — early day — around 12 pm (3) asahr — mid day (4) maghrib — sunset (5) Isha — night. That is not counting praying before meals, praying when doesn’t feel good, etc. I can say that they certainly pray more than most Christians. That doesn’t mean Christians don’t believe in prayers and God.
Geeze, I never said that Buddhism doesn’t believe in higher power. Number 2, our aunt is different than anyone else I know, and you know that…even mom said that…Yes, she prays for such a long time while burning the incense that it scared all the kids and even adults in the neighbor hood away. And we laughed about it, YOU DID 2, Yes you!!…SO you shouldn’t use hers as an example from the beginning anyway. Because she’s just exceptional
Geeze. Personal attack.
Haha. How old was I when I laughed at her again? As stated, I didn’t care much about religions. I thought they were stupid, hence whatever she did were, too.
There’s a reason people think our aunt is exceptional or odd. Buddhism has exceptionally strict rules, like not marriage or vegeterianism, etc, therefore we don’t see that many committed Buddhist.
The same thing happens to Christianity. Most Americans claim to be Christians, but truely, how many percent of them go to church every Sabbath or Sunday? How many of them read their Bibles everyday? And I have seen many Christians being laughed at for being “too religious”, and a lot of them became “less religious” to fit into social groups — I have on my computer a whole sermon by David Asscherick about this issue. If anyone wants it, give me a call or throw me an email. I’ll be more than willing to share it.