Though I’ve practiced various forms of meditation for years and have studied and applied different western philosophies, this has been the most substantive book I’ve read specifically on Buddhism. The book was extremely useful for me mostly because it approaches the topic first from a historical approach; to gather context on the religion, its source ideas, and how it was spread; and then expands into more detail on the beliefs. The author seems to be very informed on the topic and provided what appears to be a balanced view of the overall practice - though he did seem to put down one or two specific sects.
Most of the reviews of this on goodreads seem to be near copies of each other, stating it's an old and great introductory book. Both statements are true however, regarding age, Buddhism has been around for 2,500 years and still quotes the Gautama Buddha extensively… I doubt there’ve been any massive changes since this book was written. Regarding its introductory nature, absolutely. It’s a 200-something page book on a 2,500 year old practice/religion that likely isn’t mastered by most after a lifetime of study. That being said, the last 1/3 of the book goes into the beliefs and histories of individual sects within Buddhism and starts to feel a lot less like an introductory course.
Some of the key tenets of Buddhism, per the author in his 12 Principles of Buddhism (comments in parentheses are my additions as I understand the teaching - not necessarily Buddhist teaching):
1. Self-salvation is for any man the immediate task.
2. The first fact of existence is the law of change or impermanence. Life alone is continuous (perhaps meaning the ‘spark of life’ or consciousness never ceases), ever seeking self-expression in new forms.
3. The law of change applies equally to the 'soul' (perhaps meaning, more exactly, the ‘character’ of an individual or self - which possesses the illusion of continuity). There is no principle in an individual which is immortal and unchanging (because the ‘spark of life’ is not tied to the individual, I think).
4. The universe is the expression of law. All effects have causes, and man's soul or character is the sum total of his previous thoughts and acts. (Karma is manifested as the effects of previous life actions)
5. Life is one and indivisible, though its ever changing forms are innumerable and perishable. There is, in truth, no death, though every form must die (see my references to ‘spark of life’ above).
6. Life being One, the interests of the part should be those of the whole. Desires, especially selfish desires, produce suffering. Eliminate its cause to attain enlightenment.
7. The Eightfold Path consists in Right (or perfect) Views or preliminary understanding, Right Aims or Motive, Right Speech, Right Acts, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Concentration or mind development, and finally, Right Samadhi, leading to Full Enlightenment.
8. Reality is indescribable, and a God with attributes is not the final Reality. The purpose of life is the attainment of Enlightenment.
9. From potential to actual Enlightenment there lies the Middle Way, a process of self-development between the 'opposites,' avoiding all extremes.
10. The Buddhist should at all times be 'mindful and self-possessed', refraining from mental and emotional attachment to 'the passing show'. (Meditation is a path to this)
11. Buddhism knows no authority for truth save the intuition of the individual, and that is authority for himself alone.
12. Buddhism is neither pessimistic nor 'escapist', nor does it deny the existence of God or soul, though it places its own meaning on these terms. It is a system of thought, a religion, a spiritual science and a way of life, which is reasonable, practical, and all-embracing.
My questions about Buddhism include:
How did the concept of Nirvana come into being? Is it simply because Buddha said he achieved it? It seems like quite a leap to assume/believe that a state of transcendence exists simply because of Buddha’s claims.
The two principles of Karma and non-self seem to conflict. If Karma is an universal effect of past lives, how can one be expected to transcend the illusion of self? Why would Karma not be a collective effect, versus an individual?? (I recognize that I am probably viewing this ‘incorrectly’ by reverting to the status of a self - I think Karma would be collective in Buddhist teaching… not sure… nonetheless) Same question, different approach, how does the practice reconcile the collective soul/non-soul with individuals (ie. Buddha) being the ones that achieve Nirvana?
Does Buddhism make a claim of what good and evil actually are? If mindset or thought are the determinants of good or evil actions, what is to determine the good or bad qualities of those actions? Do my own bumbling failures that harm others, made with good intention, mean that I have done a good or bad act? I think I know that ‘the answer’ is subjective (and tied to Principle 11 above) and the effect of actions on others tied to their Karma but, coming from a Catholic upbringing, this non-dogmatic approach is confusing and refreshing.
In the future I plan to expand more on what the practice of Buddhism tends to be applied in societies. Some initial observations that I think may be found include:
A tendency towards passivity towards one’s condition as, outside of having positive mental thoughts and actions, one may not be able to directly change their Karma.
An unknown effect on society coming from the practice’s views of ridding the self of desire, hatred, delusion, and fear. (Fear could be an interesting one…)
My one takeaway quote:
“Look within: thou art Buddha.”
-Gautama Buddha