As a note I am combining my reviews of this book and Buddhist’s Ethic - A Very Short Introduction.
Summary
Buddhism is gaining in popularity, but it has so many varying practitioners that it is hard to put a finger down on what it is exactly. I wanted to find out what it was from the horse’s mouth, and nowhere produces horses better than London’s universities, so that is where I decided to get my information. I’ve read quite a few books from the “Very Short Introduction” series and have yet to be disappointed; this was no exception. Since I am from the west most of my understanding will be filtered from that worldview.
History
The history, told briefly, is that the Buddha achieved enlightenment around 400-500BC. He then founds what we now know today to be Buddhism, defining several key concepts like karma, reincarnation and principles for achieving enlightenment or at least getting closer to that destination. After about a hundred years there was a fairly massive split which could be likened to but is not analogous with the protestant reformation. Skipping a lot of history, you ended up with three main schools:
The Theravada school which is one of the oldest and is considered to be the conservative school
The Mahayana school which seems to have been largely influenced by the combination of Buddhism with Chinese culture and is responsible for large amounts of myths around the Buddha and bodhisattvas (somewhat analogous to saints). The Mahayanist would think of themselves as having a fuller gospel. They shift the focus from saving oneself to saving others.
The Tibetan school, this is the one you most often see in Hollywood movies. They are cinematic and use secretive symbols and have secretive initiative rights maybe the Masons would be somewhat similar?
Buddhism’s history is remarkable in just how little violence has been used in the spread of the religion. This is due to the fourth precept of the eight-fold path: And what is right action? Abstaining from killing, abstaining from stealing, abstaining from sexual misconduct. This is called right action. In one more weird parallel to Christianity, there is also an Indian emperor (Ashoka 304-232BC) that was converted to Buddhism after a battle and as a result greatly aided its spread through largely peaceful means. That is not to say that violence and Buddhism have never worked together, but that should be seen as a side effect of the religion’s relationship with the state instead of any of its inherent teachings.
Ideas
The central idea is that existence is suffering or at least a central part of existence is suffering. These sufferings are brought about by cravings or attachments. It is possible to transcend these attachments and the eightfold path is the way to this transcendence. As an aside, one objection I had when first coming across this idea of killing desire is that it was self-defeating, as you weren’t really killing a desire, but instead you were just choosing one desire over many desires. This objection is mostly caused by translation. The English word ‘desire’ is broader than the one used by the Buddha. The desire for enlightenment does not fall under the category of harmful desire (think compulsive desire to smoke another cigarette) so it would be denoted by a different Sanskrit term.
Cosmology
Buddhism is a break from other contemporary religions in that it does not acknowledge one or many supreme creators. The universe is seen more like a clock or process. Buddhist do acknowledge the existence of divine or supernatural beings such as Demigods and Devas, but none of these are creators. One of the universe’s central processes is computing Karma. Much like the universe calculates force multiplying acceleration by mass, the universe is also calculating the karmic impacts of the actions of entities inside of it. This makes Buddhism at its heart a moral philosophy, there is no one handing out judgements, but there are judgements, one of them being to confine an individual to the death and rebirth cycle. The salvific goal of many religions is to allow its participants communion with god(s) in a paradise. For Buddhism the goal is vaguer, it is to reach Nirvana. Nirvana is a topic that the Buddha pointedly refused to elaborate on, but he did say that you would be just as wrong to consider it annihilation as you would be to consider it an eternal resting place for the soul. How are these karmic calculations persisted? Through reincarnation, much like in multiplication where we carry numbers over from one column to the next, your karmic deeds from past lives and your current life will be carried forward again and again until you are liberated from the wheel of death and rebirth. Karma effects everything from what species you are, to how much money you will make. In Buddhism there is a definite hierarchy of creatures, although humans aren’t the highest in the list, they are the most prized level because they are the ones best situated to achieve enlightenment and thus to escape the wheel. A side effect of this is that contrary to the Christian idea that humans get their dignity from being created in the image of God, to Buddhists, human dignity is directly tied to their capacity for enlightenment. The other assumption that is baked into Buddhism is the concept of freewill, but in a more complicated sense then is typically conceptualized. We are tied by the bonds of dependent origination, or another way of thinking of it is repetition. The first link of dependent origination is ignorance. This is broken by the study of the eight-fold path. You could think of the breaking the first link as you exerting free-will for the first time instead of being directed by animal instincts.
Ethics
The second book was a closer examination of Buddhist’s normative responses to things like vegetarianism, abortion, suicide, euthanasia etc. The short summary is that the Buddhist answers are for the most part identical to Christian positions, (I should say Christianity is identical to Buddhism seeing as it predates Christianity by half a millennium) but for completely different reasons. The biggest difference is Buddhism’s relation to animals. This difference comes from the conception that any of us could have been or could become an animal at some point, and so it extends the golden rule to animals as well. For this reason, a majority of Buddhists are vegetarian. An example of similar answers for different reasons can be looked at in Buddhism’s traditional view of sex. Casual sex for the Christian should be avoided for many reasons, it makes a mockery of Christ’s relationship with the church, it defiles both participants and it angers the creator. From the Buddhist’s view casual sex should be avoided because it is an attachment generating activity. The sex drive is one of the strongest sources of desire of humans, and therefore is one of the greatest obstacles to enlightenment, therefore it should be suppressed and transcended. As a note later Buddhist school such as Tantric Buddhism looked at sex and other powerful drives as possible shortcuts to enlightenment. If you could harness their powers carefully you might be able to sever yourself from this illusory experience and achieve enlightenment in a single lifetime.
Buddhism in the Modern Age
One of the appeals of Buddhism to moderns is that it is much more aligned with newer scientific findings than other religions. The research on the benefits of meditation is ubiquitous, and so far, most of their cosmology does not contradict any of the current scientific theories. This has led to an increase in popularity and often, hasty explanations of thorny issues. The most well-known “issue” that a modern person would have is around reincarnation, much like Biblical miracles the first answer in the ‘Age of Reason’ is to turn reincarnation into a parable of some sorts. This is possible but subverts the original teachings, not a deal breaker but isn’t considered good behavior either. Another thing that happens is reading or current values into older texts. This is almost impossible not to do but is something we have to try and recognize. The best example of this is in the somewhat complicated relationship Buddhism has with nature. When you first compare it and Christianity, they appear to approach nature completely differently. But on closer inspection their aims are not that different. When we think of nature now, we think of the land as well as the creatures. This inclusion of the land is not as clearly indicated in Buddhist thought. Furthermore, we now love the earth because it is our home, and it has been given intrinsic values, meanwhile the goal of Buddhists much like Christians is to leave this world behind. That is not to say pollution and waste are encouraged, but it isn’t fundamentally rejected either. It’s complicated. The author of the book for his part, saw these frictions as a positive thing. An exciting chance for a new school of Buddhism to emerge in the modern age. One that is more interested in social and ecological justice as well as personal spiritual growth.
Thoughts
I have recently been conceptualizing everything in terms of game theory. Specifically, the idea of there being two fundamental approaches to any game, acting like a hawk, or acting like a dove. Buddhism and Christianity as understood from the Sermon on the Mount are dove religions. For this reason, both are susceptible to hawks, and as a result, when they traverse outside of monasteries and are given powers in a nation state for example, it isn’t long before dove-ish principles are jettisoned in favor of more hawkish ideals. It is difficult enough to be a dove in your personal life, I think history has proven it is impossible to be a dove as a nation state. This book has cleared up some misunderstandings while introducing some new ones. It would seem that there is a central inconsistency to the Buddhist doctrine, much like Christianity’s problem of evil. I have not done the research, but I am sure that my objection has been made long ago, and that there have been gallons of ink spilt in response. I also feel relatively sure that there is and will never be satisfactory answer given, much like the problem of evil. The problem is this, the central sign that someone has achieved enlightenment is that they realize that the idea “I” is an illusion. This is fair enough, but the issue appears when you combine this truth with the rest of the system. That is karma, enlightenment, escape from the wheel, reincarnation and all the rest. Because once you bring those ideas into play the question is raised. Who or what is achieving enlightenment? Who or what is earning or losing karma? Who or what is being reincarnated aside from a unique unit of some sort, with a barcode if you will. “I” very well may disappear upon entry into Nirvana, but “I” must exist in samsara at least or the whole system would break down in my view. The first answer is that the whole point is to realize the illusion, but this ignores the fact that the fundamental signature of an illusion is that it disappears upon discovery. This hasn’t appeared to have happened, to anyone, not even the Buddha, who ceased to be an “I” in the typical fashion. A lesser objection is that of karma for animals, because if one can lose karma to become an animal that must mean that the reverse is true. It seems to me difficult to imagine a way for an animal to be a better or worse animal. These objections aside there is much to admire in Buddhism, and as far as frameworks go, I think the world would be improved by having more Buddhists, which is the signature of a helpful framework and more than I can confidently assert about myself.