Customer Reviews

An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices (Introduction to Religion)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Most books available on Buddhism on bookshelves at the popular level leave a great deal to be desired. Either they are written by people who have had no contact with Buddhism, culturally or by practice (or at best very little practice of the wrong sort) thus taking a literalist approach to translated Buddhist scripts or they are too specialist, providing a view of Buddhism based on only one school or a narrow emphasis, often hawking for influence.

Professor Harvey has both contacted Buddhism culturally and continues to make an honest attempt to put Buddhism into practice. An introduction to Buddhism is one of the best overall introductions to this vast subject now available, superseding equivalent good books which are by now up to 50 years too old. Harvey combines scholarship including a knowledge of Pali and Sanskrit along with sensitivity to the contexts in which the various scriptures can be seen.

In the forest of competing books out now, this one can be recommended without reservation.

Peter Harvey's book is dull but extremely useful for those wanting help in learning about the history, practices, and divisions of Buddhism. If a comprehensive, encyclopedia-like reader is wanting you are needing, then this book is your answer, although I would advise taking "no dose" while reading it. Harvy sets forth a historical explanation for all elements of Buddhism and presents the sanskrit form of names and terms. I personally found Harvey's review of Tantra and Zen Buddhism to be particularly helpful. Too often, books and documentaries emphasize the sexual aspects of Tantra and the meditation of Zen without clearly stating what each denomination believes and, more importantly, why they believe such things. Also, before this book, I had trouble finding where to begin in learning about Buddhism, and this book leads its reader by the hand and into the most important issues of Buddhism, escaping the confusion caused by a western interest in Buddhism since the 1960's.

Excellent introduction for the beginner, and/or anyone who wants to increase their historical and conceptual knowledge of Buddhism & Buddhist beliefs and practices. There are tons of books out there regarding Buddhism, it's different strains, texts, and interpretations. Many of these books seem to me to be "California Zen Pop-Buddhism," while others are 50 years old, very dry, and esoteric. After patiently skimming through various chapters at the bookstore, I realized that I had finally found a well-written book on this subject. I will also look into other works by Peter Harvey.

Harvey does a wonderful job of introducing the reader to the Buddhism of the Buddha. Then he takes you through the development of Buddhism country by country, showing you how mythology and cultural influences were then added to give us the different denominations we have now.

Harvey does a good job covering all of the history and basics, but the terminology and references are too dense for a casual read.

This text is used at univeristy to explain the history of Buddhism, not an easy read but useful if you want an indepth review and source of reference. Comprehensive introduction to the Buddhist tradition as it has developed in three major cultural areas in Asia, and to Buddhism as it is now developing in the West. It is intended to be a textbook for students of religious and Asian studies respectively, but will also be of interest to those who want a general survey of Buddhism and its beliefs. Unlike many other general books about Buddhism, it not only explores Buddhist beliefs, but also seeks to show how Buddhism functions as a set of practices. Since being written in 1990 some information is now out-of-date.

This book gives a basic introduction for university or high school students of Buddhism. My one criticism is that it almost completely ignores doctrine and instead focuses on practices and monastic life. However, it treats these subjects thoroughly and does include some information on doctrine.

Without resorting to unintelligent baseless claims and conjectures like Mr. Harvey has done, the facts of the book as presented do not reflect what Gotama taught. If Mr. Harvey, in his book, had presented his book as "the view of X school of tibetan Vajrayana", that would suffice, however the book itself presupposes to be "what Gotama taught", which is utterly without scriptural representation.
Anatta in sutra is synonymous and interchangeable with the terms dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanent), and all three terms are often used in triplet in making a blanket statement as regards any and all phenomena. "All these aggregates are anicca, dukkha, and anatta."
Anatta refers only to the absence of the permanent soul as pertains any one of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) attributes, or Khandhas (skandhas, aggregates). Anatta/Anatman in the earliest Buddhist texts, the Nikayas, is an adjective, (A is anatta, B is anatta, C is anatta). The commonly held belief to wit that: "Anatta means no-soul, therefore Buddhism taught that there was no soul" is a concept, which cannot be found or doctrinally substantiated by means of the Nikayas, the sutras, of Buddhism.
It is of course true that the Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical "self" in the very meaning of "my-self" (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta), one might say in accordance with the command `denegat seipsum, [Mark VII.34]; but this is not what modern writers mean to say, or are understood by their readers to say; what they mean to say is that the Buddha denied the immortal (amata), the unborn (ajata) and Supreme-Self (mahatta') of the Upanishads. And that is palpably false, for he frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha), and nowhere more clearly than in the too often repeated formula 'na me so atta', "This/these are not my Soul" (na me so atta'= anatta/anatman), excluding body (rupa) and the components of empirical consciousness (vinnana/ nama), a statement to which the words of Sankhara are peculiarly apposite, "Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real"[Br. Sutra III.2.22]. It was not for the Buddha but for the nihilist (natthika) to deny the Soul.
In fact the phrase "Doctrine of anatta", or "Anatmavada" is a concept utterly foreign to Buddhist Sutra, existing in only non-doctrinal Theravada and Madhyamika commentaries. As the saying goes, a "lie repeated often enough over time becomes the truth". Those interested parties to Buddhism incapable of pouring through endless piles of Buddhist doctrine have defacto accepted the notion of a "Doctrine of anatta" as key to Buddhism itself, when in fact there exists not one citation of this concept in either the Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta, Anguttara, or Khuddaka Nikayas. Unless evoking a fallacy, we must stick strictly to sutra as reference, wherein the usage of anatta never falls outside of the parameter of merely denying Self or Soul to the profane and transitory phenomena of temporal and samsaric life which is "subject to arising and passing", and which is most certain not (AN) our Soul (ATTA). Certainly the most simple philosophical logic would lead anyone to conclude that no part of this frail body is "my Self, is That which I am", is "not my Soul", of which Gotama the Buddha was wholeheartedly in agreement that no part of it was the Soul, i.e. was in fact anatta.
The perfect contextual usage of anatta is: "Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind away from these and gathers his mind/will within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is most excellent!" [MN 1.436]
The term anatman is found not only in Buddhist sutras, but also in the Upanishads and lavishly so in the writings of Samkara, the founder of Advaita Vedanta. Anatman is a common via negativa (neti neti, not this, not that) teaching method common to Vedanta, Neoplatonism, early Christian mystics, and others, wherein nothing affirmative can be said of what is "beyond speculation, beyond words, and concepts" thereby eliminating all positive characteristics that might be thought to apply to the Soul, or be attributed to it; to wit that the Subjective ontological Self-Nature (svabhava) can never be known objectively, but only thru "the denial of all things which it (the Soul) is not"- Meister Eckhart. This doctrine is also called by the Greeks Apophasis.
----Mr. Harveys book is, unfortunately, little more than a secular pseudo-intellectual attempt to "take Christ out of Christianity", or in this case to take the "only refuge (the Soul/Atman), out of Buddhism"

Book arrived promptly. Well wrapped. In new condition as promised. This was a very satisfactory transaction. My thanks to the vendor!

I read this book hoping for a clear understanding of Buddhism. This book is written very bland. Very few pictures too. I find it difficult to read and follow.