Rating: 
Summary: Mr. Rahula has wrote opinions contrary to sutras on the Soul
Review: Both Mr. Rahula and the reviewer below have, unfortunately substituted their views/opinions/beliefs with what Buddhism does in fact teach in its Suttas (discourses). Most important as regards the Soul (Pali: Attan, Skt: Atman). Mr. Rahula in his book goes into a three page diatribe without citation that "there is no Soul in Buddhism"; to apparently back up his claim he cites the many instances of the term Anatta (no-Soul), however Rahula, like the reviewer below are entirely unfamiliar with the neti-neti (not this not that methodology) of Indian Philosophy. Specifically, anatta is used only in connection with description of 'X'; the fallacy that Rahula and the reviewer below make is: ABCDEF is not X (Soul/Atman) , therefore X doesn't exist; which of course is highly fallacious thinking.
Mr. Rahula's book fails to mention what Anatta really means in Buddhism teachings: "what does anatta mean Lord?"............"Just this.........form is not the Soul (anatta),,,,neither are feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness" SN 3.196. This is a citation, not an opinion. In fact the reviewer below as well as Rahula misunderstand Buddhism which does in fact teach a Soul, an Absolute, such as: "The Soul has become like unto Brahma (Absolute)" [MN 1.341], in fact: "The only refuge is the Soul, with none other as refuge" (DN 2.100). One who is "all wise" in Buddhist scripture is said to have "become the Absolute" (Brahmanbhu).What must be understood by intelligent folks is that the views or personal dogmas of both Rahula and his advocates (such as the reviewer below who feels 'there is no Soul in Buddhism') must come second not only the scriptures/citations of Buddhism itself but also to the philosophy of said scriptures. Surely one must ask Rahula what Immortality (amata) is contingent upon if there be no Soul as falsely forwarded by Rahula and those that blindly believe him; and also why there is also no negation of the Soul anywhere in Buddhist scripture? What are we to make, in contradiction to Rahulas "there is no Soul in Buddhism" view, such as the many thousands of passages as: "The Soul is Charioteer"[Jataka-2-1341], "Parinirvana is to be fixed in the Soul" [Sn 372], "The Soul is the dearest beloved" [AN 4.97], "The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto" [KN Jatakapali 1441] , "To be fixed in the Soul is to be flood crossed" [Mahavagga-Att. 2.692] , "The Soul is Svabhava(Self-Nature)." [Maha'vagga-Att. 3.270]. I'm rather afraid that blind conjectures such as Rahula's and the poster below as regards the Soul (atman) are just that, merely regurgitated dogma/beliefs, and not direct citation of the religion in question, that being Buddhism. As regards an "unchanging Self/Soul", the term reserved for "unchanging" is nicca (everlasting) , opposite to that of anicca (impermanent); the only thing deemed "permanent" (nicca) is the Soul (attan) as SN 1.169 and other locations in the sutras of Buddhism. Quite commonly ignorant and or philosophically illiterate folks take "all things are empty and dependently arisen" too far. Nobody is under the delusion that all phenomena/things/sankhara are paticca-samuppada (dependently-arisen), however "that which makes things arise is not that 'thing' nor itself arisen" -En. I must forcefully say that Mr. Rahula makes many errors in his book, but most importantly he espouses Buddhism as anti-foundational nihilism in contradiction to everything Buddhism does in fact teach in its Sutras: " dwell with the Soul as your Light, with the Soul as your refuge, with none other as refuge." [SN 5.154, DN 2.100, SN 3.42, DN 3.58, SN 5.163]. Technically since Mr. Rahula only espouses the five aggregates of phenomena in his book, he is defacto claiming Buddhism to be merely Humanism/Materialism, and in denial of a transcendental element which "fares on to Immortality" -Samyutta. [Nettippakarana 44] "The mind (citta) is cleansed of the five khandhas (pañcakkhandha'); is to be cleansed from these, hence the Bhagavat says 'The purification of the mind (citta) is the Brahma-faring of the Tathagata'.." "'The purification of one's own mind', this means the light (joti) within one's mind (citta) is the very Soul (attano)" [DN2-Att. 2.479] ; "The purification of one's own mind (citta); this is the Doctrine of the Buddha" [DN 2.49] ; "How is it that one is called a 'Buddha'?...gnosis that the mind (citta) is purified (visuddham)...such is how one is deemed a 'Buddha'." [MN 2.144]. Having successfully proven Mr. Rahula's claims wrong with both reason, philosophy and most importantly Buddhist scriptural citations, I suggest that people reference what Buddhism teaches rather that blindly agree with the personal views of Mr. Rahula which are not found in Buddhism's teachings.
Rating: 
Summary: A must book for the beginner or curious
Review: This book has changed my life. After reading it, I became a Buddhist. In a way, I have always been a Buddhist (I just did not know it). This book does not insult your mind.
The author gives you the right dose of information to understand the basic beliefs or understandings in Buddhism. You can read this book at many levels--beginner to advanced. He assumes you know nothing about Buddhism. Therefore, he explains things simply while leaving room for questions you will need to find out with further study. The reference section is very nice. He tries not to water down the study while making it accessable. A great book.
I am changed forever
Rating:
Summary: What the Buddha never taught. Contrary to Sutta.
Review: This book is full of three things namely: 1 The views/beliefs/conjectures of Rahula. 2. The doctrine of Theravada (Natthika), based in Abhidhamma, not Sutta. 3. Aphilosophical conclusions not bassed in the Suttana of Buddhism (Nikayas).
Walpola Rahula, contrary to Buddhist Sutta makes 2 rather large (3 actually) claims as per Buddhasasana (Buddhism) in this book.
#1. One must be a monk/bhikkhu to attain the status of Arahantship; and that #2. There is no Absolute/Soul (attan/Atman) in Buddhist Doctrine. This is all well and fine except that Walpola Rahulas claims are his own and 180 degrees to the Suttas (definative texts/scriptures); i.e. the Nikayas. Walpola Rahula's claim #1 is refuted in Sutta at:
[SN 5.410] I proclaim there is absolutely no difference between a layperson with a mind (citta) which is liberated, and that mind of a bhikkhu which has been liberated for a century.
[AN 3.451] Monks, having followed six things, the layperson Tapussa, because of hearing the Tathagata, has come to utmost supreme transcendence, has seen utmost immortal and has his being in the realization of the immortal itself. Other refutations to Rahula as per Bhikkhu/Arahantship are at: [AN 3.451] and [Theragatha #144] Walpola Rahula's claim #2 as per the Soul/Spirit/Atman being "denied" in Buddhism is refuted in Sutta at:
The Soul is Charioteer"[Jataka-2-1341]
"The Tathagata is without the mark of all things, he dwells upwards within the signless inflexured mind (citta). There within, Ananda, dwell with the Soul as your Light, with the Soul as your refuge, with none other as refuge."
[SN 5.154, DN 2.100, SN 3.42, DN 3.58, SN 5.163]
"The Soul is ones True-Nature (Svabhava)" [Mahavagga-Att. 3.270]
" the light (joti) within one's mind (citta) is the very Soul (attano)" [DN2-Att. 2.479]
"The Soul is the dearest beloved" [AN 4.97]
"The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto" [KN Jatakapali 1441]
"To be fixed in the Soul is to be flood crossed" [Mahavagga-Att. 2.692]
"The Soul is Svabhava(Self-Nature)." [Maha'vagga-Att. 3.270]
"The Soul is the refuge to be sought" [Suttanipata-Att. 1.129]
"Having become the very Soul, this is deemed non-emptiness (asuñña)" [Uparipanna'sa-Att. 4.151]
"Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means steadfast in ones True-nature (thitasabha'vo)" [Tikanipa'ta-Att. 3.4]
I'm rather afraid that the claims (of which there are many) that Mr. Rahula makes in this book are just that, claims only. Opinion/conjecture/belief/speculation , as a claim must be not only be substantiated in the texts/scriptures of said religion, but also must be philosophically coherent. Mr. Rahula's book, to those in the know, is not only a summation of Buddhism as it exists in doctrine, but is a collection of Abhidhammic (Theravada/Natthika/Atomism) beliefs contrary to the oldest texts of scriptural Buddhism, that being the Pali Nikayas. Pali Scholar and translator -Admnts.
Rating:
Summary: a great basic buddhism book
Review: I'm not sure why the earlier reviewer had a one-star reaction to this book. This is a clear expositon of early Buddhism. Most sects that call themselves Buddhist would accept what is said in this book. I don't remember anywhere where the book claims to be the last word on anything.
As the offended reviewer noted, the book's claim that no blood has been shed in the spread of Buddhism is a bit farfetched, with human nature being the way it is. If the book's claim bothers you, I suggest that you get a pen and cross out the annoying sentence.
After that, settle down to enjoy a crystal-clear, nonsectarian approach to the basics of Buddhism. I first read this book years ago, and I return to it periodically for its simple exposition of complex ideas.
Rating:
Summary: A wonderful and brief introduction
Review: Especially considering its brevity, it is hard to think of a better introductory text to classical or Theravada Buddhism. The author gives a short introduction and then discusses the Four Noble Truths, the value of meditation, and some ideas on the modern relevance of Buddhism. The index and glossary are excellent, although the text translations may be a bit out of date (one good source of modern text translations is accesstoinsight.org).
This book can be recommended for beginners, and to experienced meditators or Buddhists who would like a good "memory refresher."
Rating:
Summary: full of it
Review: It's too bad this book has become a leading authority in the US on Buddhism, because it's, well, full of it! Walpola Rahula asserts, for example, that "not a single drop of blood" was shed in Buddhism's spread across the world. Maybe he thinks the violence of the Heian monasteries' armies, the Kayin Buddhist army, the centuries of capital punishment and mutilations in Buddhist Tibet, the Korean monastic wars, etc etc should be blamed on al-Qaida or aliens or something. This book pretends that Therevadin Buddhism is the Buddha's only legitimate heir, speciously applies the Buddha's teaching on the relevance of India's gods to the question of God's existence, ignores all hard questions of doctrine and dialogue, and just generally propagandizes like a drunken Steven Segal. I was really let down by this famous book.
Rating:
Summary: If only every introductory work was this good
Review: I was assigned this for a course and had to finish it in a day so others would have a chance to use my copy. I had no idea that any introductory work to anything could be so clear, concise, and practical. What some people have called a dry writing style is to me a style devoid of any unnecessary content, quite objective, and uninterested in making things sound 'easy' when they aren't. Rahula admits throughout that some concepts can be difficult to comprehend, but at the same time he does not shy away from them or gloss over important parts of Buddhist teaching. He supplements his summary with a healthy amount of primary source quotes, and uses Buddha's stories, examples, and parables instead of his own. I don't usually find any non-fiction work this absorbing or readable. If you have any interest in Buddhism at all I doubt there's a better place to start.
Rating:
Summary: Incredible book
Review: I couldn't put this book down. It changed my whole outlook. I had commited previously to studying Buddhism but needed a factual and well writen guide. This book is it. The author does justice to Buddhist teachings, unlike many others who distort them to their own ends. If you are looking for good intro to Buddhism, this is it. I can't recommend this book highly enough. You'll never see the world the same way again.
Rating:
Summary: simply incredible
Review: I was spending a lot of time researching Buddhism after reading an article This book however has sealed the deal for me. The writing is fantastic, not presuming you have any background on the subject. The author walks you through every step and gives very good examples of the practices and beliefs in action.
Rating:
Summary: Still the best short introduction to Buddhism
Review: ~
This is a magnificent distillation of the Buddha's teachings. The author comes from the Theravadan tradition, which is probably the tradition that has changed least since the Buddha's time and hews most closely to what the historical Buddha taught: all the other forms of Buddhism are in a sense descendents of the Theravadan tradition. So Walpola Rahula is well-placed to present the central tenets of Buddhism, which almost all the later versions of it share. He does this with amazing clarity and grace. I have come back to this book again and again, and its cogency, accuracy, and clarity impress me more every time I return. Since I practice in the Tibetan tradition, a tradition whose practices have changed very much since the Buddha's time, and which acknowledges a whole additional set of scriptures which the Theravadans think inauthentic, it impresses me especially that I find nothing to quarrel with in this presentation. He really does stick to the bedrock essentials. Excluding the last section of the book, a selection of original texts, this book is only one hundred pages long! You can read it in a day or two. And yet -- as so many other reviewers attest here -- it conveys the heart and pith of Buddhism. I owe this book a special debt: before I read it I was not a Buddhist; by the time I had finished it I was. That was ten years ago. I feel that I owe the ten richest, joyfullest years of my life largely to this little book. I've read many good introductions to Buddhism, but I still think this is the best. If you read just one book about Buddhism, let this be it! PS -- this is me a few months later, having used this as a text for a highschool class -- I realize I should add a bit of a warning label to my rave review. The book was a bit dry for my class: Walpola Rahula was anxious to present Buddhism to the West in its most rational form, and he makes little or no appeal to that sense of Romantic wholeness, or that desire for ecstatic experience, which motivates so many Westerners nowadays to explore Buddhism. If I were to teach this again, I think I might use one of Pema Chodron's or the Dalai Lama's books for a first introduction -- they wear their compassion and joy more on their sleeves. This is a book aimed pretty exclusively at the intellect. But this is still the introduction to give to your scientist friend who thinks that all religion is superstition, or to your socialist friend who thinks religion is just the opiate of the masses -- and it's still my personal favorite.
|
