In the Buddha's Words (Bhikkhu Bodhi, 2005)

In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon (Bhikkhu Bodhi, 2005)

I did not want to read a Buddhist book as envisioned by a self-help guru written primary for housewives, so I decided to read the original material. The book, "In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon", has organized material from the Pali Canon, which is material supposed to be directly from Buddha himself. The Pali Canon is one of the earliest material and if I understand correctly, it’s something like 40+ volumes, so the book I am reading is a small introduction to it.

Aside from being an introduction, the book has also few important changes. First, it organizes the material in categories (the original Pali Canon has no specific framework) making it easier to read and it shortens the text sometimes, because the way it is originally written (well, originally recited), there is a lot of repetition. I know that sounds confusing, and that sounds confusing, but I will try to make it less to sound confusing by using this sentence which is going to make it less to sound confusing and by organizing the material in categories (the original Pali Canon has no specific framework) making it easier to read and it shortens the text sometimes which makes it sound less confusing which initially it was more confusing.

Something like that but for 80 lines, so the author just does a … on repetitions make it easier to read. Each section is introduced with commentary on the following material, but I would first read the sutras (the scriptures, like Quranic suras) and then once I finished the section, I would go back and read the commentary. I wanted to see my first reaction to the original text with as little outside influence as possible. Not that there isn’t any outside influence, given that first there is translation to English, but also translation to Sri Lankan before that, and that the written form was hundreds of years after Buddha, but at least I’m trying.

Now my opinion. I don’t know how much of the material is actually Buddha’s words and how much is post-Buddha dogma and certainly reading one book on Buddha does not make me Nirvana PHD maestro but I have a feeling that a lot of material is not Buddha’s. Because sometimes he sounds like a nice old chap, not sounding dogmatic, superstitious, or specific, but other times he sounds majestic, lavishing praise on his own brilliant Enlightened knowledge. I feel the latter was added by his followers and my gut (which is always wrong, but might be right here) tells me that Buddha was the sort of sage that used many of contemporary beliefs of his time and wrapped them around simple ways to improve one’s life. I almost feel like he himself did not believe many of it, but no prophet can come and teach the people from his area from a blank canvas. They all have to use material the people are familiar and comfortable with and try to slowly mold it into something else.

There is some wonderful material in Buddha’s statements, such as the allegory of the elephant to show that all diverging opinions on religion are not necessarily wrong but incomplete so no one should claim full authority on the subject. Or the one where he talks about being good and if we get rewarded for it by going to heaven (as some say) or rebirth (as others say) then great, but if neither exist, then we still haven’t lost anything, because at least we led a good life here on earth.

All these material is good, but I’m not so won over by the emphasis on life being a sort of suffering on earth and our goal is to escape from it. Than in itself is no problem, but it is the outcome of such an ideology that does not sit well with me. First of all, I don’t like the idea of the monks. Buddha places them on a higher level than the rest of the people, but monks don’t earn their own food, which irritates me a bit. The teachings show that people should ward off materialism, but the people who have given up materialism have to beg food from people who haven’t. This in turn means that the religion has made it beneficial to the hard-working materialistic layman to give his food and resources to these monks in exchange of gaining good points for his next life.

Which brings me to my next issue with the whole dogma. The concept of doing good and being reborn into a better life has meant that the rich and successful in the present life are born into that life due to the good deeds they did in the previous life and the sick, poor, and diseased are being punished. This creates a fatalistic, caste system, of which countries that were heavily influenced by reincarnation religions have the most of.

All in all, I’d hang out with Buddha himself, but probably not his followers.