It didn’t take long for me to realize Two Buddhas Seated Side by Side wasn’t what I had expected. I wrote a Two Star review on Amazon:

Jacqueline I. Stone gets 5 stars for her contribution to this book. Donald S. Lopez Jr. gets a negative three. Stone is famous for her scholarly work on the Lotus Sutra and the 13th century monk Nichiren. Lopez has no appreciation for this sutra and consistently demonstrates his disdain for all Mahayana Buddhism. Stone’s contribution to this book, which seeks to marry her insight into how the Lotus Sutra was interpreted in medieval Japan with a chapter by chapter analysis of the sutra, just can’t survive Lopez’s poison.

Over the last several days I’ve been inputting the quotes from Stone’s portion of the book that I will use as part of my 32 Days of the Lotus Sutra practice. I should have enough material to fill three, maybe four, rotations, although as I progress fewer and fewer of the quotes will address that day’s reading.

Having finished the book, I’ve amended my Amazon review. It’s still two stars:

At the conclusion of the book, the authors say:

Our first aim in this volume was to introduce readers to the rich content of the Lotus Sūtra, one of the most influential and yet enigmatic of Buddhist texts, and to provide a basic chapter-by-chapter guide to its often-bewildering narrative. Our secondary aims were related to hermeneutics. Through the example of the Lotus Sūtra, and its reading by Nichiren, one of its most influential devotees, we have sought to illuminate the dynamics by which Buddhists, at significant historical moments, have reinterpreted their tradition. Thus, this study has taken a very different perspective from that of commentaries intended primarily to elucidate the Lotus Sūtra as an expression of the Buddhist truth or as a guide to Buddhist practice. Our intent is not to deny the sūtra’s claim to be the Buddha’s constantly abiding dharma; rather, we have been guided by the conviction that the full genius of the Lotus as a literary and philosophical text comes to light only when the sūtra is examined in terms of what can be known or even surmised about the circumstances of its compilation. Adopting that perspective suggests how the compilers may have grappled with questions new to their received tradition and how they refigured that tradition in attempting to answer them. (Page 263)

This first aim is reasonably accomplished but it is the secondary aim that is well wide of the target. Lopez is responsible for this and his claim that “Our intent is not to deny the sūtra’s claim to be the Buddha’s constantly abiding dharma” is undermined by denigration of all Mahayana teachings throughout the book, the most glaring example being his description of the Lotus Sutra on Page 56:

The Lotus Sūtra, like all Mahāyāna sūtras, is an apocryphal text, composed long after the Buddha’s death and yet retrospectively attributed to him.

Yes, I would have been happier if Lopez and Stone had chosen instead to write a book “intended primarily to elucidate the Lotus Sūtra as an expression of the Buddhist truth or as a guide to Buddhist practice.” But describing all Mahayana Buddhism as somehow outside Mainstream Buddhism does not illuminate how Buddhists over the years have dynamically reinterpreted their tradition.