• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
From Buddha To Jesus, An Insider's View of Buddhism and Christianity
, by Steve
Cioccolanti, 2007.A review by Venerable Shravasti Dhammika.
A book on Buddhism has just been published that has apparently created some interest within evangelicalChristian circles. The book is called
 From Buddha to Jesus
and the author, Steve Cioccolanti, is of Thai-Western extraction and pastor of a church in Melbourne, Australia. Both in his website and once in his book (p.13) Cioccolanti says he was a Buddhist and thus his book has the subtitle '
 An Insiders View of Buddhismand Christianity
'. He mentions that when he called himself a 'deist' he apparently wore a 'white Buddha'around his neck and a cross (p.14). On his website he says he came from a family of Catholics, Methodists,Buddhists and Muslims. This suggests to me that Cioccolanti came from a very nominally religious, not tosay a religiously confused, background and that he was never a Buddhist in any meaningful sense. By theseventh page of the book it becomes abundantly clear that this is the case.Cioccolanti claims that his book is an account - not of Buddhist philosophy, the Buddhism of the sacredscriptures - but of Buddhism 'as it is actually lived' (p.13). He is anxious to help Westerns see thatBuddhism 'on the ground' differs a great deal from 'real' Buddhism. That may be true, but surely it’s thesame with Christianity 'as it is actually lived'. To give but one example. The southern United States, the so-called Bible Belt, has the highest percentage of churchgoers in the USA and some 84% of Christians theredescribe themselves as being either evangelical or 'born-again.' And yet it has long been and continues to be even today the most racially bigoted part of the US. Blacks and whites don’t mix and never is the Southmore segregated than on Sunday morning. Blacks and whites will not even worship the same God together and 200 years of fervent churchgoing has not been able to change this sad situation. Buddhism 'as it isactually lived' is sometimes not very inspiring but nor is Christianity.However, despite the claim that he is only going to examine Buddhism 'as it is actually lived' Cioccolantifails to keep his word. Throughout his book he describes various popular Thai superstitions, belief or customs and then a few pages later attributes them to the Buddha or says that they are based on canonicalteachings. For example, he tells a story (p.144.pp) not found in the Tipitaka, the commentaries or the sub-commentaries and which is either a village folk story or one of his own fabrication (he gives no source).Then a little later (p.149) he discusses this story as if it were the authoritative words of the Buddha. Thisslight-of-hand enables him to give the impression that Buddhism is a mishmash of confused andcontradictory ideas.Another trick he pulls is to say 'Buddhists believe…' and then describe some Thai misunderstanding of theDhamma, whereas in fact most of the things he describes are specifically Thai and unknown in other Buddhist lands. For example, he says that according to Buddhism a woman 'can never give food directlyinto a monk's hands' (p.117). So poor is Cioccolanti's knowledge of Buddhism that he is unaware that thisis a custom unique to Thailand and not practiced in Sri Lanka, Burma, Bhutan, Tibet, Mongolia, China,Korea or Japan. It is not a 'Buddhist' teaching, it is a Thai custom. Like many Thais, Cioccolanti laborsunder the conceit that what's done in Thailand
is
Buddhism.The third trick Cioccolanti uses is the old and well-worn one of attributing to your opponent an idea thatthey don’t hold and then demonstrating that this idea is wrong, foolish or untrue. This is his main strategy.So for example, he insists again and again that Buddhism teaches that you cannot go to heaven/attainenlightenment if you break any of the moral rules, that it is impossible to follow all these rules and that asa result Buddhists live lives of frustration, disappointment and despair and go straight to hell when theydie. To make this sound like an even more hopeless situation he discusses some of the 227 Vinaya rules,sometimes correctly saying that these are for monks and nuns but at other times muddying the water so asto give the impression that lay people are expected to abide by these rules too (p.56;75). He even goes asfar as to claim that all the Vinaya rules were incumbent on every Buddhists but because the monks realizedthat it was impossible for 'commoners' to follow them all they 'have brought it down to 5', i.e. the fivePrecepts (p.75). This is utter nonsense. As every monk and all informed lay people know, the Vinaya rulesare for the clergy and consist of moral rules, rules of etiquette, for the smooth running of the monasticcommunity and for harmonious communal living. Nowhere did the Buddha suggest that it was only possible to attain enlightenment by following these rules. He taught the exact opposite. For example, hesaid that the minor Vinaya rules could be changed according to circumstances (Digha Nikaya,II,154)meaning that they are not necessary for salvation. He said that 'even if a monk is not expert in the rules he
 
may still practice in full accordance with the Dhamma, may still practice correctly, may still live byDhamma, and therefore be one worthy of honor and respect' (Majjhima Nikaya, III,39).The purpose of all this is not to give a fair and authentic account of Buddhism, but to reinforce evangelical prejudice against Buddhism and hopefully to disillusion Westerners in Buddhism. Cioccolanti hopes thatwhen Westerners know what Buddhism is 'really like' that they will loose interest in it, and perhaps returnto the faith of their fathers. As it is, most Western Buddhists are interested in the Dhamma because it is alogical, credible, humane and fulfilling philosophy of life, not because of what the Thais do or don’t do.If Buddhism is really as nonsensical and confused as Cioccolanti claims, why do so many Westernersleave Christianity and embrace it? The 2006 census showed that the number of Buddhists in Australia had jumped by 107% since 1996 (p.8). Cioccolanti is convinced that it cannot be that Buddhism has anythingworthwhile to offer, so he has to explain its attraction some other way. His explanation is that actuallyWesterners are embracing Buddhism as a reaction against Christianity, particularly against the Christiandoctrine of sin (p.14). Being both a Westerner and a Buddhist I find this explanation unconvincing. Basedon my own experience and that of my many Western Buddhists friends I would say that the main reasonsWesterners reject Christianity are, in order of importance, (1) the apparent contradictions betweenChristianity and science, (2) logical and ethical problems with the idea of God, (3) Christianity's record of intolerance, (4) perceived Christian hypocrisy, and (5) having had negative experiences with Christians or with churches. Apparently the recent Edge Church scandal in South Australia led to a significant number of people loosing their faith or at least have it badly shaken; - not the doctrine of sin, but the sinful behavior of those claiming to have all the answers. Recently released statistics show that in Austria during the last 15years 370,000 people left the church, 40,500 in 2008 alone, a hemorrhaging that experts attribute to a stringof high-profile church scandals, not to the churches' teachings about sin. And why do Westerners look toBuddhism as an alternative? The most commonly mentioned factors are (1) intellectually acceptabledoctrines, (2) the emphasis on understanding rather than dogma and credulous belief, (3) Buddhism'sgenerally gentle and tolerant outlook, (4) the self-awareness and inner peace imparted by meditation, and(5) having met a Buddhist who impressed them. Most Western Buddhists, and not only them, are put off bythe doctrine of Original Sin and eternal hell, but none I know have ever said that it was a major reason for leaving Christianity.I perused Steve Cioccolanti's wedsite and noticed that some of his sermons dealt with such subjects as thedate of the end of the world, the coming world wars, how to identify the anti-Christ, biblical propheciesand miraculous healings. It seems that he also believes that Satan was responsible for the 911 bombings(p.221) and that a plumber turned evangelist named Smith Wigglesworth raised more than 20 people fromthe dead (p.157). I think it is fair here to point out that even many sincere Christians wince withembarrassment and roll their eyes upwards when they hear this sort of Christianity being preached.The truth is that many better-educated Westerners find these and similar evangelical beliefs unconvincingand even laughable. Cioccolanti has a series of DVD's on different religions which I assume are as biased,ill-informed and full of put-downs as his
 From Buddha to Jesus
is. I would say that another reason many people turn to Buddhism is because it's gentle, respectful attitude to other faiths is more in keeping withgood-will and tolerance, values that they have come to treasure.To give the impression of an in-depth and 'insider's' knowledge of Buddhism Cioccolanti frequently usesPali and Sanskrit terms. This is unfortunate because it immediately demonstrates that he knows very littleBuddhism and that he has not even read any reliable secondary sources. A small selection of his garbledPali will demonstrate what I mean. The Sanskrit root of Buddha is not
bud 
but
budh
(p.11). He has
tukka
instead of 
dukkha
(p.49),
benja seen
instead of 
 panca sila
(p.75),
anata
instead of 
anatta
(p.188),
khandas
instead of 
khandha
(p.188),
antn-na-ta-na vermani
instead of 
adinnadana veramani
(p.76) and
micha-thi-ti
for 
miccha ditthi
(p.202). That these and numerous other spelling mistakes are systemic rather thantypographical errors is verified by other supposed Pali words and phrases that are incomprehensible. For example, he says that
a-mita-bucha
is Pali for 'don’t worship materiality' (p.176),
tamma
means 'theteaching of morals' (p.197) and that
 panya-dtagk-charn
and
 pa-ti-sampi-tayarn
are Pali-Sanskrit terms(p.201). I showed these phrases to a professor of Pali at Peradeniya University in Sri Lanka and he too wasunable to make sense of them. Likewise, the Pali words given on pages 99, 143, 203 and 238 areincomprehensible. On the few occasions when Cioccolanti gets his Pali right he usually misunderstands or mistranslates it. For example, he takes
 samsara
to mean 'reincarnation' (p.12) whereas the actual word for reincarnation is
 punabhava
.On page 143 Cioccolanti gives the hardly recognizable Pali of the Buddha's last words and then 'translates'them. This is his 'translation.' 'Do not make idols nor worship or bow down to them. Seek the Holy One
 
who is always living. Watch your heart. Don’t be careless, but be ready all the time. Let all of you searchfor the way to escape your sinful natures, or eternal ruin will come to all of you.' Perhaps the third andfourth sentence could be considered a very loose paraphrase of part of the Buddha's final words, but the rest bears no resemblance to them at all. It looks like Cioccolanti has deliberately fabricated these words tomake it appear that the Buddha was pointing to the advent of Jesus. The Buddha's authentic last words can be found at Digha Nikaya,II,156. On page 12 Cioccolanti says that Pali and Sanskrit are 'inextricablyintertwined', which gives you some idea of the level of his understanding of the two languages.Cioccolanti's knowledge of the Buddhist scriptures is even worse than his Pali. Although he often quotesthe Bible and always gives the scriptural reference, not one of his supposed sayings of the Buddha isaccompanied by a reference to the Buddhist scriptures, or indeed any source, and not one of these supposedsayings is familiar to me. According to Cioccolanti the Buddha said 'if one is guilty of one sin, one is guiltyof all of them' (p.93). I have been studying the Tipitaka for 35 years and I know of nowhere where theBuddha says this or anything like it. 'Buddha taught that these
 gileads
(
kilesa
, defilements?) were part of the immortal nature of man' (p.52). He taught the exact opposite. 'The mind is pure but it is stained bydefilements that come from without' (Anguttara Nikaya,II,94). He also said, 'By defilement of mind beingsare defiled; by purification of mind beings are purified' (Samyutta Nikaya,III,151). And of course theBuddha also taught that man does not have an immortal nature. In fact, the doctrine of no immortal self (
anatta
) is the Buddha's most unique and well-known doctrines - well-known to everyone except SteveCioccolanti. He asserts that the Buddha commanded his disciples to abstain from meat (p.114). Wrongagain! Indeed, when one of his disciples demanded that vegetarianism be made compulsory the Buddhafirmly refused (Vinaya,II,197). 'Sins can never be erased by one's good deeds'. That may be Cioccolanti'sidea but it is not the Buddha's; see for example Dhammapada 173 and also Anguttara Nikaya, I,249-52). Heclaims that the Buddha never denied the existence of God (p.139) and thus must be unfamiliar with JatakaVI,208 where the Buddha unambiguously does so. He quotes the Buddha as saying, 'To worship correctly,you should worship the truth, don’t worship materiality' (p.143) which could be a vague paraphrase of 'Beheirs of my Dhamma, do not be heirs of material things' (Majjhima Nikaya,I,12) but as no reference isgiven it is impossible to say. And anyway, if it is this passage it is nothing like an accurate translation of it.Cioccolanti relates several stories concerning the life of the Buddha or which supposedly illustrate aspectsof Buddhist doctrine. Again, none of these stories are from the Tipitaka or even from the ancientcommentaries and I have never heard of any of them before. I suspect they are Thai religious folk tales.The problem with such material is that it could be used to prove or disprove almost anything. If I were touse Christian apocryphal literature, non-canonical Gospels, Medieval hagiographies and Sicilian religiousfolk tales to prove that Jesus taught A, B or C Cioccolanti would be the first to cry foul, and rightly so. If I were to relate all the misunderstandings of the Gospel (the Catholics, the Mormons, the JehovahWitnesses, the Prosperity Gospel, etc) and all the scandals that plague evangelical and Pentecostal churchesas examples of Christian belief and practice, Cioccolanti would be incensed, and he would have a right to be. But this is exactly the approach he takes to Buddhism.There are several places where Ciccolanti relates teachings and parable which are recognizable as beingfrom the Tipitaka, two of these being the Buddha's comparison of people to lotuses and his Parable of theBlind Turtle. Both these teachings are well-known and often feature in popular literature on Buddhism. Butit's obvious that Cioccolanti's has never read any of the numerous popular books that contain theseteachings, let alone the original. It looks like his only familiarity with them is a confused, third-hand, folk retelling of them. He devotes a whole chapter (p.41-45) to the Buddha's comparison (he incorrectly calls ita 'parable') of different types of people to lotuses and he draws several points from it. Unfortunately, hisignorance of the original invalidates all these points. The Buddha mentions three types of individuals, notfour, and the purpose of the comparison is to highlight the Buddha's compassion in teaching the Dhammaeven though most beings have 'much dust in their eyes', not to analyze different psychological types. This isevident from the Buddha's inspiring paean at the end of the comparison, 'Open for them are the gates of theImmortal. Let those who can hear respond with faith' (Majjhima Nikaya,I,169). The famous Parable of theBlind Turtle is of course used to illustrate the idea that human birth is a rare and precious opportunity.Cioccolanti's skewed version of it leads him to think that its moral is 'it's impossible to save yourself fromyour own sins by trying to keep good rules' (p.141). As with the rest of his book, his ignorance of Buddhistlanguage, literature and philosophy leads him to completely unjustified interpretations.Cioccolanti says that the Buddhist scriptures are difficult to read and that most Buddhists are unfamiliar with them, both valid points, although he admits that this last point is equally true of Christians (p.226).While this is a sad fact, it is probably understandable given that most people in Buddhist countries were
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...