An easy introduction into Buddhism. Not too in-depth you get overwhelmed if you are new to the subject, but in enough detail to learn and expand your knowledge. ( )

Not very good. Yeah, it was an OK introduction to Buddhism so I don't want to knock it TOO much but it had a lot of problems, in my view. The tone is set when, in his introduction, he mentions Edward Said so he can say "we should be careful looking at Buddhism because orientalism" but then proceeds to say "we don't need to buy into Said's conspiracy theories"! It's not the typical fetishism you see in popular books, but he does tend to idealise Buddhism, covering up its flaws and history - for example, he talks about Buddhism being considered one of the "most ethical" religions, compares Buddhism's "peacefulness" to the crusades and jihad, talks about how Buddhism isn't dogmatic, glosses over issues like women's rights, says Tibet was a theocracy but doesn't say anything else past "Tibet occupation bad", etc. He seems to think of Buddhism as somehow a uniquely "good" religion.

I also really disliked his constant use of Pali words. He says a word in English, puts the Pali in brackets, and then uses the Pali to refer to the concept later (although inconsistently). This makes the text tougher to follow and doesn't really feel important for an introduction (Although weirdly when discussing early Buddhist divisions he uses English words only and they don't seem to be conventional terms). Most of the "Buddhism in the West" chapter doesn't really feel important or useful - just listing dates and names. There's not much at all about the actual practise of Buddhism - how people actually experience it - which seems important. Although it talks about Mahayana specifically, he doesn't talk about Theravada except to say that it exists. When talking about practise and theory he says stuff like "Some say x but others say y" without identifying who "some" is or what the majority view is or anything, which is incredibly unhelpful. There are a few things which I found kind of insulting but I think that'd just be me - they're weird humanistic liberal things that seem to ignore material reality.

Ultimately, although it was an introduction and I learnt some things, I felt I got less out of it than reading Wikipedia - it could have been much improved and I was pretty disappointed. Not really worth it. ( )

Good overview.
In places it was a bit preachy and written from a position of religious belief rather than inquisitive scholarship which made some parts a bit weird and uncomfortable to read. ( )

Very basic. ( )

As ususal with the 'Short introduction..' series, a workmanlike and readable introduction. I now know as much as I want to about the subject and where to go if I want more. ( )