Book Review: Living Buddha, Living Christ
A friend of mine claimed there are parallels between Jesus Christ and Buddha. He referred to the 1995 book Living Buddha, Living Christ by Thich Nhat Hanh as the foundations for the statement. Taking into consideration my knowledge of Christ, my limited understanding of Buddha as well as my conversation with my friend, I don’t doubt there are certain similarities between Christ and Buddha, but I do doubt the prominence and significance of these purported parallels. Prior to opening the book, I developed the assumption that the author applies incorrect Christology to come up with a forced parallel, albeit probably unintentional, simply from a misunderstanding. I assumed that certain aspects of Christ have been taken and emboldened while disregarding correct Christology, likely due to unintentional negligence caused by a lack of understanding of Christology, thus a portion of Christ has been applied in this work rather than the entirety of Christ.
After reading “Living Buddha, Living Christ,” my assumptions were confirmed. I did monitor my own biases while reading to try to avoid forcing the book to conform to my convictions of it. With that said, it is startlingly clear that Hanh developed and applied his own incorrect Christology while emboldening certain aspects of Christ, typically in an incorrect manner, to create forced parallels to reach his own conclusion that Buddha and Christ are extremely similar. The author doesn’t develop a clear conclusion, however his theme develops into a belief that Christians do not practice Christianity as Christ taught it and instead should be practicing in a way the mirrors Buddhism more due to the parallels the author believes he has found between Jesus Christ and Buddha. By going through the book and comparing to Church teaching and tradition, we will see how this is an incorrect belief to hold regarding Christianity.
For some background on the author, Thich Nhat Hanh was a Vietnamese Buddhist monk born in Vietnam in 1926. Hanh became a novice monk at the age of sixteen at a Buddhist temple in Hue City. He was very active in renewing Vietnamese Buddhism during the 1950s. During the Vietnam war, Hanh was active in helping the victims of the war while maintaining his Buddhist practices. In 1961, he travelled to the United States to teach Comparative Religion at Princeton. During the 60s, he travelled through the US and Europe calling for peace and for an end to the war in Vietnam. He met Martin Luther King Jr in 1966, who nominated Hanh for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1967. As a result of this work, Hanh was denied the right to return by both North and South Vietnam, which lasted 39 years. Hanh continued his work globally calling for peace while opening various organized movements and monasteries in California, New York, Vietnam, Paris, Hong Kong, Thailand, Mississippi and Australia, and Europe’s “Institute of Applied Buddhism” in Germany. Hanh continued his work until he completed his life on January 22, 2022 at the age of 95. (Thich Nhat Hanh n.d.)
The biography of Thich Nhat Hanh shows he was a very peaceful man seeking peace for others. I intend to be respectful towards this author and those who venerate him and his work. I do not believe anything in this book was intended or desired to be malicious, instead I hold that Hanh wanted to share the same peace he found for himself. However, the basis for the theme in this book is on poor foundation, as though it was built on sand. My intention with this review is to help educate readers on the false nature of the claims made in Living Buddha, Living Christ and to show people the true love, peace, and grace that is found in Christianity, something unmatched by any other religion.
Apprehensions
Hanh notes his own negative experiences with Christians and historical figures in Christianity. Early in the book, he refers to the French colonization of Vietnam and cites Alexandre de Rhodes, “one of the most active missionaries” in the late seventeenth century. Hanh refers to a writing from Rhodes in Catechismus in Octo Dies Divisus: “Just as when a cursed, barren tree is cut down, the branches that are still on it will also fall, when the sinister and deceitful Sakya [Buddha] is defeated, the idolatrous fabrications that proceed from him will also be destroyed” (Hanh, 5). Hanh continues that in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Catholic Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuch leaned heavily on the political power of his brother, Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem, who set out a decree in 1963 prohibiting the celebration of Wesak, the most important Buddhist national holiday, which lead to thousands of lay and ordained Buddhists demonstrating for religious freedom ultimately leading to the overthrow of the Diem regime (Hanh 1995, 5). The author concludes these statements stating “in such an atmosphere of discrimination and injustice against non-Christians, it was difficult for me to discover the beauty in Jesus’ teachings”. This resulted in Hanh not consulting the Church and instead developed his understanding of Christianity through people he felt “truly embody the spirit of understanding and compassion of Jesus.” He states “Through men and women like these, I feel I have been able to touch Jesus Christ and His Tradition.” (Hanh, 6).
It is quite understandable that one would have an aversion to Christianity after such experiences. Alexandre de Rhodes was evangelizing in a militant way in the late 1600s, engaging with what knowledge he knew and was taught. After over 300 years since then, we Christians realize that is not the proper means to evangelize.
Regarding Archbishop Thuch, unfortunately the Church is made of people and people are sinners. It is not appropriate to lean on political and family power to evangelize by preventing people from practicing non-Christian religions. The means to evangelizing is to explain the Faith through word and deed, not by coercion.
As a convert, I understand his bias. When I first accepted God and His Son, Jesus Christ, I was seeking a Church while trying to avoid the Catholic Church, however every time I learn more about the Catholic Church and her teachings, I see the truth she has retained, despite being made of people, and all people are sinners.
We see this aversion to Christianity throughout the book. One of the fundamental differences between Christianity and other religions are the dogmas and doctrines developed after millennia of contemplation, theological discussion, and development. Hanh writes that he believes “discussing God is not the best use of our energy.” (Hanh, 21). As an alternative, he cites the Buddhist practice of mindfulness through “sitting meditation, walking meditation, mindful eating, and so on.” (Hanh, 21). Our understanding of God comes from countless years of discussing God. If we do not discuss God and try to understand Him through the Revelation He has given us in both Scripture and Tradition, we will fall astray and into heresy, and out of God’s grace that we could otherwise be blessed with.
Hanh also expresses feelings about Christian prayer. He writes, “In Buddhism, practicing the teaching of the Buddha is the highest form of prayer. The Buddha said, ‘If someone is standing on one shore and wants to go to the other shore, he has to either use a boat or swim across. He cannot just pray. ‘Oh, other shore, please come over here for me to step across!’’ To a Buddhist, praying without practicing is not real prayer.” (Hanh, 79). This is a common tone throughout the book, resulting in the writing portraying a theme that Buddhists focus extremely little on prayer and aggressively on practice while holding a belief that those who focus on prayer in a measure comparable to their practice, are not being productive with their prayer. The quote from the Buddha also carries a mocking tone in my opinion. We don’t pray for God to deign to us to bring us miracles, instead we pray to build our relationship with God and thus improve our practice. While it is true that if one is not practicing, they aren’t truly Christian, discounting the value of prayer is dangerous. Prayer is important because it is how we present our petitions to God to bring His will to fruition. It is extremely important to integrate practices throughout one’s life, but the relationship we build with God through prayer is transformative in ways that cannot be replicated by practice. In short, our prayer helps improve our practice.
The Holy Trinity
Thich Nhat Hanh writes about the Holy Trinity throughout his book, and most all of it is incorrect. In Christianity, the Trinity is God, three Persons, one God, consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. “We do not confess three Gods, but instead He is one God In three persons, the ‘consubstantial Trinity’ The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: ‘The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 253). Additionally, the divine persons are really distinct from one another. “‘God is one but not solitary.’ ‘Father,’ ‘Son,’ ‘Holy Spirit’ are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: ‘He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.’” (CCC 254). The mystery of the Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them.” (CCC 234). Most heresies have developed out of a misunderstanding of the Trinity, therefore it is very essential to be based in the truths we know about the mystery of the most Holy Trinity when discussing Him.
Hanh deviates from these truths multiple times. We refer to the Trinity as God. Hanh writes “God as the ground of being cannot be conceived of. Nirvana also cannot be conceived of. If we are aware when we use the word ‘nirvana’ or the word ‘God’ that we are talking about the ground of being, there is no danger in using these words.” (Hanh, 144). This is significant because Hanh is likening God to nirvana, as a state of being, or ground of being that is to be pursued. As outlined from the Catechism, God is anything but a state of being. Hanh works towards this development throughout the book utilizing incorrect ideology about the Holy Spirit and the Son of God.
Hanh writes more on the Trinity stating “The Son and the Holy Spirit have direct access to God” (Hanh, 161). This is another reference to a theme he carries that Christians believe God the Father is God, instead of holding the Trinity as God. He writes “All Christians, while praying to God, address Him as Father”, indicating his incorrect understanding that the Father is God without the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ being included in the Godhead (Hanh, 193). The mystery of the Trinity is incomprehensible and developing one’s own understanding is dangerous because it leads them astray and into heresy. By straying from the truths regarding the Holy Trinity, the theology built on his understanding is incorrect.
The Holy Spirit
The author begins the book by discussing the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity. He first refers to a conversation he had with a Catholic priest in Florence, during which Hanh asked the priest to share his understanding of the Holy Spirit, to which he replied “the Holy Spirit is the energy sent by God” which made Hanh happy because it confirmed his own belief that “the safest way to approach the Trinity is through the door of the Holy Spirit” (Hanh, 13-14). Hanh continues by laying the foundation for his comparison between “mindfulness” and the Holy Spirit. He explains for Buddhists, “our effort is to practice mindfulness in each moment – to know what is going on within and all around us…When we are mindful, touching deeply the present moment, we can see and listen deeply, and the fruits are always understanding, acceptance, love, and the desire to relieve suffering and bring joy.” (Hanh, 14).
Hanh continues that he believes mindfulness is like the Holy Spirit. He writes “To me, mindfulness is very much like the Holy Spirit. Both are agents of healing” and refers to Buddha having been called the King of Healers. Hanh mentioned that in Christian Scripture, when someone touches Christ, they are healed (Hanh, 14). He adds, “it is not just touching the cloth that brings about a miracle. When you touch deep understanding and love, you are healed” (Hanh, 15). Hanh concludes on this writing “The Holy Spirit descended on Jesus like a dove, penetrated Him deeply, and He revealed the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Jesus healed whatever He touched. With the Holy Spirit in Him, His power as a healer transformed many people.” (Hanh, 15). Many times throughout the text he applies the term “mindfulness” synonymously when he mentioned the Holy Spirit.
While the parallels can be seen in the way Hanh writes, they are not truly there. Hanh’s understanding of the Holy Spirit is very incorrect. The Holy Spirit is not a state of being like mindfulness, He is God Himself, the Third Person of the Trinity. During the Last Supper, Jesus said to His disciples, “the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you” (John 14:26). This came to fruition on the day of Pentecost when “suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where [the disciples] were sitting. Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability.” (Acts 2:2-4). Jesus applied the pronoun “whom” to the Holy Spirit, indicating the Holy Spirit is a Person, not a thing or state of being. He also said the Holy Spirit will teach them everything and remind them what Jesus has said to them, an action that is done by a person and not by a thing or state of being. Then on the day of Pentecost, they were “filled with the Holy Spirit” rather than finding the Holy Spirit by working towards a state of being. It was on the day of Pentecost that the Holy Spirit manifested, communicated, and was given to the disciples as a divine person (CCC 731-732).
In contrast, mindfulness is a state of being attained through practice. To be mindful is to “touch deeply.” Hanh writes the first practice he learned as a novice monk “was to breathe in and out consciously, to touch each breath with mindfulness, identifying the in-breath as in-breath and the out-breath as out-breath” (Hanh, 15). He later develops this to touch each part of the body with mindfulness (Hanh, 19). He adds that mindfulness is being present, “Our true home is in the present…to walk on the green earth in the present moment. Peace is all around us – in the world and in nature and within us…we need only to bring our body and mind into the present moment…When mindfulness is in you, the Holy Spirit is in you, and your friends will see it.” (Hanh, 23-24).
Mindfulness is a state of being that is attained from within, whereas the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which surpass mindfulness, are given by God through the Person of the Holy Spirit. Quite simply, the two are not the same. While a Christian who has received the Holy Spirit can create an environment for the Holy Spirit to flourish by slowing down and being mindful of the present moment, the attained state of “mindfulness” is not the same as the Person of the Holy Spirit.
Regarding the healing abilities of Buddha and Christ, Hanh refers to people being healed through the practice of mindfulness that “When you touch deep understanding and love, you are healed” inferring that Buddha healed through others touching him in his mindfulness. By contrast, Jesus healed people with His divine touch and the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus healed lepers and brought deceased people back to life, something that a person practicing mindfulness would be unable to do.
While one can approach the Trinity through the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit should not be treated as a door like mindfulness. I agree that if one does not slow down and stop being distracted to be mindful in the moment, they will not facilitate an environment that allows them to touch the Holy Spirit, but practicing mindfulness is not the same as being filled with the Holy Spirit Himself.
By having developed this incorrect perception of the Holy Spirit, Hanh mistakenly likens Buddhist practices to the teachings of Jesus. His ideas built on this false theology are incorrect to the operations and understandings of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Trinity. He is not a state of being. He is actually a Person who can guide us, that is, if we listen.
Jesus as the Son of God
Hanh likens much of Buddha and Jesus to try to draw similarities, however this is based on a false version of Christ. He refers to two versions of Jesus in Christology, one he calls “the historical Jesus [who] was born in Bethlehem, the son of a carpenter, traveled far from His homeland, became a teacher, and was crucified at the age of thirty-three” and the “Living Jesus [who] is the Son of God who was resurrected and who continues to live” (Hanh, 35). Hanh also notes that he considers it a pity that in order to be considered Christian, one must believe in the Resurrection, stating “we can appreciate Jesus Christ as both a historical door and an ultimate door.” (Hanh, 35). He also asserts “Jesus is the Son of Woman and Man” as “the child of Mary and Joseph” (Hanh, 36). Hanh concludes this portion writing “for me, the life of Jesus is His most basic teaching, more important than even faith in the resurrection or faith in eternity. (Hanh, 36). Later on, Hanh adds, “Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of Man. We are all, at the same time, sons and daughters of God and the children of our parents. This means we are of the same reality as Jesus. This may sound heretical to many Christians, but I believe that theologians who say we are not have to reconsider this.” (Hanh, 44).
Thich Nhat Hanh developed his own Christology as shown in these writings that may be comparable to Buddha, but is very incorrect for the truth of Jesus Christ. Hanh perceives two distinctions of Jesus Christ as Son of Man and Son of God. In order to do this, Hanh strips away a major aspect of Jesus Christ, His divine birth. Joseph fulfilled a major role in the life of Christ, however the virginal birth of Jesus from the Blessed Virgin Mary means Jesus is not the Son of Joseph in the same way we are children of both our parents. The virginal birth of Jesus is a fulfillment of the Scriptures, “the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son” (Isaiah 7:14) and also points to His Divinity as the Only Begotten Son of the Father, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son” (John 3:16). As the only Begotten Son, Jesus is the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, while we are children of God by being reborn through the baptismal waters.
Hanh views the Resurrected Jesus as “the ultimate door” in a more ideological sense. His writings carry messages infused with the concept that Christ lives on in us through His teachings in the same way Buddha lives on in Buddhists through his teachings. Hanh refers to the “Mystical Body of Christ” as the basis for this, however the theology for the body of Buddha is far different from that of the Mystical Body of Christ. While an aspect of being a member of the Mystical Body of Christ is to follow His teachings, we are also integrated as members of His Mystical Body by receiving Him in Holy Communion, which is not just symbolic.
Additionally, Hanh, despite his good intention, goes to the point of heresy. His statement regarding belief in the resurrection indicates he likely advocated for people to identify as Christian without believing in the Resurrection of Jesus, which dismantles the entirety of the Christian Faith. “Christ’s Resurrection is the fulfillment of the promises both of the Old Testament and Jesus Himself during His earthly life.” (CCC 652). “The Resurrection of the crucified one [Jesus], shows that he was truly…the Son of God and God Himself.” (CCC 653). By removing the virginal birth, disregarding the Resurrection, and then plainly saying “we are of the same reality as Jesus,” Hanh strips Jesus of His divinity, viewing Him as only human, effectively removing every aspect that makes Jesus the Christ. By doing this, Hanh uses a false version of Jesus to draw comparisons between Christ and Buddha, that are not actually there due to the falsities used to try to see parallels.
Misunderstandings
The author also shows other moments of trying to draw parallels in a seemingly forced way. Hanh describes a portion of Buddhism with a feminine side, writing, “we are all mothers of the Buddha because we are all pregnant with the potential for awakening…We also say that Prajnaparamita (Perfection of Wisdom) is the mother of all Buddhas…in Catholicism, there is a great deal of devotion to Mary, the Mother of God. In fact, ‘father’ is more expressive of the side of wisdom or understanding, and mother the side of love or compassion. In Buddhism, understanding is essential to love. Without understanding there cannot be true love, and without love there cannot be true understanding” (Hanh, 40-41).
Hanh describes feminine and masculine sides of Buddhism, and the two work together because they cannot exist without each other. He seems to apply this towards God the Father and the Blessed Virgin Mary, however this does not at all apply. Mary, the Mother of God, is pure human and not divine. She received the title Mother of God in 431AD at the Council of Ephesus to combat the heresy of Nestorianism by affirming and declaring Jesus’s divinity from the time of conception in her womb, however she is not the originator of his divinity. Mary is a created creature and not eternal, therefore she does not represent a feminine side of God. God is outside of gender and has revealed traits we would call feminine, however we apply male pronouns because that is how He revealed Himself to us.
Hanh continues to force parallels in regards to the communion of Saints in the Catholic Church. He writes “The Buddhist Sangha includes Arhats, those who have overcome all afflictions, and Stream-enterers, those who have entered the stream that will surely lead them to enlightenment…In Christianity, some people have been declared saints or holy persons. Perhaps they are similar to Arhats and Stream-enterers, but I must confess I don’t understand how it is decided who is a saint (Hanh, 64). Arhats and Stream-enterers are living people, whereas people are declared as Saint’s after their death. The title of Saint comes after an in-depth process and is “given to someone who has been formally canonized by the Church as sharing eternal life with God, and therefore offered for public veneration and imitation.” (Sarno n.d.). The canonization process is extensive and requires a deep review of the candidate’s life on earth as well as miracles from prayers invoking their intercession after death that can be proven without a doubt. While Hanh confesses himself that he is unsure of this comparison, this excerpt shows the nature and presuppositions behind his writings causing him to try to draw parallels between Christianity and Buddhism.
Another crucial aspect for Christianity that is incidentally distorted by the author is the Eucharist in Catholic Holy Communion. Hanh refers to the Liturgy of the Eucharist stating “When we are truly there, dwelling deeply in the present moment, we can see that the bread and wine are really the Body and Blood of Christ….The body of Christ is the body of God, the body of ultimate reality, the ground of all existence. We do not have to look anywhere else for it. It resides deep in our own being…Bread and wine are not symbols. They contain the reality just as we do.” (Hanh, 31-32). The author is very close to the truth yet is far from it. He understands that the bread and wine are not symbols and the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ who is God, however the distance from the truth is found when he states this reality “resides deep in our own being” and the bread and wine “contain the reality just as we do.” These statements go back to his belief of the Holy Spirit and mindfulness being the same and that through mindfulness, we are touching the Holy Spirit, likening us to Jesus, in his claim that Jesus touched the Holy Spirit through mindfulness, and likening our body to His Body and Blood, a belief he admitted Christians would consider heretical. To be redundant, we are children of God but not in the likeness of Jesus Christ; He is the only Begotten Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity.
When we consume the Eucharist, we are blessed with the opportunity to cooperate with God’s grace to bear fruit. “The principal fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with Christ Jesus. Indeed, the Lord said ‘He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him’” (CCC 1391). “What material food produces in our bodily life, Holy Communion wonderfully achieves in our spiritual life” (CCC 1392). These teachings (which are proven by Eucharistic miracles that can be found at https://www.miracolieucaristici.org/) are starkly contrasted by Thich Nhat Hanh’s beliefs surrounding what is called “secular Christianity” or “atheistic Christianity”. He writes, “to me, if you live deeply the teaching of Jesus, everything you say and do in your daily life will be deeply spiritual. I would not call it secular or atheistic at all. Suppose we do not celebrate a Eucharist in a Church, but sit together in the open air to share our bread, eating it mindfully and gratefully, aware of the marvelous nature of the bread. Such an act cannot be described as secular or atheistic.” (Page 144). Firstly, the Church is built around the teachings of Jesus Christ and we receive the Eucharist based on the Tradition based down by the Apostles which is supported by His teachings in the Gospel according to John found in Chapter 6. Secondly, this writing from Hanh shows his limited and false understanding of the Eucharist. Yes, if we break bread together while mindful of the present moment, everyone will enjoy something greater than a simple meal, however this is not the same as receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion.
Concluding thoughts
The book in total is 198 pages not including the foreword and introduction. A small book could be written dissecting and reviewing all the comparisons made between Buddha and Christ, however this review will be limited to the foundations Thich Nhat Hanh has laid to write the rest of the book. By going through the foundations that the remainder is built on, one can see the understanding applied is false, thus the rest of the book is not correct when paired with proper, accurate, Christological teachings that have been passed down from the original Apostles who walked with Christ. Echoing the beginning of this review, Hanh appears to be a genuinely good person with a desire to bring peace to people and to the world. I am confident there was no malicious intent in writing Living Buddha, Living Christ, however the inaccuracies have dangerous repercussions for anyone who considers it without having learned or plans to learn the fullness of the truth of Jesus Christ retained in the Catholic Church.
Overall, Living Buddha, Living Christ was an interesting read. It was written in a way that articulates deep concepts without getting lost in the words. Personally, I do not recommend reading it for any spiritual growth based on the fact it was written based on a false version of Christ. There are many errors surrounding the Holy Trinity that indicate Hanh does not understand the teachings on the Trinity as God, and most importantly, Hanh does not have a proper understanding of Christ, Who is the core element of this book. On that note, it was good to read to learn more about Buddhism and the author’s background. If you decide to read it, I hope you find it constructive to learn about various beliefs surrounding Christ while reinforcing the actual truths of Jesus Christ.
References
1995. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Canada: Doubleday.
Hanh, Thich Nhat. 1995. Living Buddha, Living Christ. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
Sarno, Msgr. Robert. n.d. “Saints.” USCCB. Accessed May 13, 2025. https://www.usccb.org/offices/public-affairs/saints.
n.d. “Thich Nhat Hanh.” Thich Nhat Hanh Foundation. Accessed July 18, 2025. https://thichnhathanhfoundation.org/thich-nhat-hanh?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=429953470&gbraid=0AAAAADbFMkrKkwm9oq1ZxUfCNxsOuHC0m&gclid=CjwKCAjw4efDBhATEiwAaDBpbhKNVEKg4VATGnUaEn1n9fMgZ-LQ64GH4AYlps_hKpx3I6i9jNmHjRoCdosQAvD_BwE.a
Leave a Reply