yet another textbook found and purchased at a price cheaper than the school offered. thanks.

This is the foremost book on Buddhism recommended for it's simplicity, authenticity, completeness, and scholastic rigor. If you want to know what Buddhism is really about, rather than what some popular crackpot or charlatan is trying to re-brand as Buddhism these days, this is the book to read. It is written with non-Buddhists curious about Buddhism in mind, and is suitable for use in college-level courses. Even if you're a Buddhist, this is worth reading just to see if you have any misconceptions about Buddhism.

This book is simple and down to earth in its presentation of Buddhism. So much so, in fact, that I am almost embarrassed by my books on Tibetan, Zen, Theravadan and all the other sectarian accounts of the Buddha's teachings. Reading Rahula, I have to ask: when did Buddhism get so complicated? And why? From his presentation, the additions to the teachings by later traditions seem superfluous indeed.

By far the most infomative book on buddhism, avoiding over simplification and really getting to the heart of this philosophy.

A book that will give you a clear, easy to understand introduction to Buddhism. Will help make hard to grasp aspects of Buddhism clear to the reader.

Walpola Rahula wrote this in the 50's so its not infiltrated with much newer "New Agey" takes on Buddhism. It gives a good idea of how and what the Buddha actually said, his style of preaching. He was repetetive to make sure the people around him understood what he meant so it could be recalled easier. I could actually picture and hear the Buddha lecturing the avid listeners as they became aware right on the spot. This book is very helpful to those who already have some basic knowledge of Buddhism. A truly oustanding work.

I think this is a perfect place to nab out any qualms you ever had with misunderstandings with buddhism. This author is the real deal, and this book has made my life more true.

"What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula is an effective introduction to Buddhist thought, dealing primarily with the Four Noble Truths, and the Eight-Fold path of Buddhism. The text focuses mostly on the doctrine, and not on the life of Buddha, or the various types of Buddhism that exist. Some excerpts of classical Buddhist texts also accompany the work. Rahula offers a clear, concise introduction to Buddhist thought that should be illuminating for the introductory reader or student.

An excellent primer on the basic principles the buddha taught. I have bought this book several times as gifts for those inclinded to the dhamma and so interested. Even though I have the translations on the sutta pitaka, compendiums of abhidhamma and numerous other books focused on the therevada tradition, this is the book that I find I go back to repeatedly for inspiration and clarification of basic principles.

No one really knows exactly what the Buddha taught because of course he wrote nothing down. We have the report of his followers and of their followers and so on. It doesn't take much insight to realize that over the years the doctrines will take on the coloring of those who have memorized them and are passing them down. Rahula's great confidence that he knows for sure what the Buddha taught is probably the most disconcerting aspect of this otherwise laudable introduction to Buddhist thought.

Consequently I am not enamored of didactic arguments about what the Buddha taught and what he didn't teach except as such ideas relate to the overall world picture that is Buddhism. I take Zen Buddhism as my guide here since it is a reaction to all the endless arguments about what the Buddha taught and did not teach and especially about what he meant. The only way to settle these arguments for yourself is to study Buddhism and see if the doctrines in question fit the overall conception.

Anatta or no-soul or no-self is perhaps the most contentious Buddhist doctrine of all. It is also one of the most difficult. I think Rahula does a good job of explaining what is at issue, but I suspect that even his one chapter on the subject in this book is not really understood by most readers. The problem goes back to the Vedas and the idea of the Atman. The Buddha understood the idea of the Atman as part of Brahman, but he subtlety changed the understanding. What he did was show that the idea of the self or the soul can be understood on two levels. On one level there is the self as experienced by people on a day-to-day, naturalistic basis. This is what in yoga is considered the ego-I or the self with a small "s." Then there is the eternal Self, the Atman which is to Ultimate Reality as a drop of water falling off the lotus leaf is to the ocean of Brahman.

The Illustrious One denied the existence of the first self as he denied all of the phenomena world as impermanent and every changing. It's not that trees and people and selves do not exist. The point is they do not exist in the way we think they exist. Our real identify is not as separate from the rest of the world, but as part of that world. We and all we see are one. All is in flux and so are we.

On the eternal soul that is unchanging (the Atman), the Buddha was silent. We know he was silent because the whole of the Buddhist teaching requires that he be silent on all matters that do not lead to enlightenment. Whether there is a God or whether there is a heavenly abode on the other side of the universe were not matters the Buddha was interested in, because for him it was more than enough to get to a plan and a methodology to deal with the unsatisfactoriness of the world.

As time passed and countless monks and others have grappled with the Buddha's teachings it has gradually been realized that underlying the so-called denial of the self is the idea that what is really at issue is identification with the self. In everybody this identification is the same. This identification is what is delusive and is what is reincarnated. This identification is powerful. It comes from the evolutionary mechanism and serves to make us protective of our physical body and to fear death.

I know personally that Rahula is not the best authority on Buddhism from reading the chapter on meditation. It is clear to me that Rahula's meditative practice was haphazard at best. This can be seen from two observations. Rahula writes, "It is for this 'meditation' only ["Awareness of in-and-out breathing" meditation] that a particular and definite posture is prescribed in the text. For other forms of meditation...you may sit, stand, walk, or lie down..." He goes on to say that "It is very necessary for this exercise that the meditator should sit erect, but not stiff; his hands placed comfortably on his lap." (p. 69)

I think it can be said that when somebody writes "very necessary" we can conclude that he is lost. You CAN meditate on your breath lying down. The problem with any kind of lying down meditation is that (1) the quality of the meditation differs (except perhaps for very advanced meditators) because the bodily stance signals to the mind a different quality of awareness; (2) you're more likely to fall asleep lying down; and (3) a dreamlike meditation perhaps with visuals comes more readily when lying down.

Rahula recommends on the following page that you try to meditate for five or ten minutes. Trust me, five or ten minutes will not get it done. Again except for the unusually gifted, it takes many, many hours to train ourselves to meditate, and instead of five or ten minutes, one should aim at an hour or more. For most people the meditative mood cannot be entered into for at least twenty or thirty minutes because it takes that much time for the mind to realize that things are secure enough and that the intention really is to meditate.

Rahula also writes that "As long as you are conscious of yourself you can never concentrate on anything." (p. 70) Actually if you are truly conscious of yourself (even beyond your breathing) you are THERE. This is not the same thing as being self-conscious.

Many Buddhist ideas, like the ideas of all religions can be understood on two levels, one, the literal denotative level, and two, the symbolic or metaphorical level. Karma, reincarnation, the "gods" that the Buddha sometimes referred to, etc. are best understood on the symbolic level. Rahula fails to make this distinction.

No one really knows exactly what the Buddha taught because of course he wrote nothing down. We have the report of his followers and of their followers and so on. It doesn't take much insight to realize that over the years the doctrines will take on the coloring of those who have memorized them and are passing them down. Rahula's great confidence that he knows for sure what the Buddha taught is probably the most disconcerting aspect of this otherwise laudable introduction to Buddhist thought.

Consequently I am not enamored of didactic arguments about what the Buddha taught and what he didn't teach except as such ideas relate to the overall world picture that is Buddhism. I take Zen Buddhism as my guide here since it is a reaction to all the endless arguments about what the Buddha taught and did not teach and especially about what he meant. The only way to settle these arguments for yourself is to study Buddhism and see if the doctrines in question fit the overall conception.

Anatta or no-soul or no-self is perhaps the most contentious Buddhist doctrine of all. It is also one of the most difficult. I think Rahula does a good job of explaining what is at issue, but I suspect that even his one chapter on the subject in this book is not really understood by most readers. The problem goes back to the Vedas and the idea of the Atman. The Buddha understood the idea of the Atman as part of Brahman, but he subtlety changed the understanding. What he did was show that the idea of the self or the soul can be understood on two levels. On one level there is the self as experienced by people on a day-to-day, naturalistic basis. This is what in yoga is considered the ego-I or the self with a small "s." Then there is the eternal Self, the Atman which is to Ultimate Reality as a drop of water falling off the lotus leaf is to the ocean of Brahman.

The Illustrious One denied the existence of the first self as he denied all of the phenomena world as impermanent and every changing. It's not that trees and people and selves do not exist. The point is they do not exist in the way we think they exist. Our real identify is not as separate from the rest of the world, but as part of that world. We and all we see are one. All is in flux and so are we.

On the eternal soul that is unchanging (the Atman), the Buddha was silent. We know he was silent because the whole of the Buddhist teaching requires that he be silent on all matters that do not lead to enlightenment. Whether there is a God or whether there is a heavenly abode on the other side of the universe were not matters the Buddha was interested in, because for him it was more than enough to get to a plan and a methodology to deal with the unsatisfactoriness of the world.

As time passed and countless monks and others have grappled with the Buddha's teachings it has gradually been realized that underlying the so-called denial of the self is the idea that what is really at issue is . In everybody this identification is the same. This identification is what is delusive and is what is reincarnated. This identification is powerful. It comes from the evolutionary mechanism and serves to make us protective of our physical body and to fear death.

I know personally that Rahula is not the best authority on Buddhism from reading the chapter on meditation. It is clear to me that Rahula's meditative practice was haphazard at best. This can be seen from two observations. Rahula writes, "It is for this 'meditation' only ["Awareness of in-and-out breathing" meditation] that a particular and definite posture is prescribed in the text. For other forms of meditation...you may sit, stand, walk, or lie down..." He goes on to say that "It is very necessary for this exercise that the meditator should sit erect, but not stiff; his hands placed comfortably on his lap." (p. 69)

I think it can be said that when somebody writes "very necessary" we can conclude that he is lost. You CAN meditate on your breath lying down. The problem with any kind of lying down meditation is that (1) the quality of the meditation differs (except perhaps for very advanced meditators) because the bodily stance signals to the mind a different quality of awareness; (2) you're more likely to fall asleep lying down; and (3) a dreamlike meditation perhaps with visuals comes more readily when lying down.

Rahula recommends on the following page that you try to meditate for five or ten minutes. Trust me, five or ten minutes will not get it done. Again except for the unusually gifted, it takes many, many hours to train ourselves to meditate, and instead of five or ten minutes, one should aim at an hour or more. For most people the meditative mood cannot be entered into for at least twenty or thirty minutes because it takes that much time for the mind to realize that things are secure enough and that the intention really is to meditate.

Rahula also writes that "As long as you are conscious of yourself you can never concentrate on anything." (p. 70) Actually if you are truly conscious of yourself (even beyond your breathing) you are THERE. This is not the same thing as being self-conscious.

Many Buddhist ideas, like the ideas of all religions can be understood on two levels, one, the literal denotative level, and two, the symbolic or metaphorical level. Karma, reincarnation, the "gods" that the Buddha sometimes referred to, etc. are best understood on the symbolic level. Rahula fails to make this distinction.

This book is fanastic - I too hae given loads of copies way to friends. It saved me from several years of cynical gloom and nihilism brough about by studying western philosophy and that dualist suff that has ruined our lives for so long - mind and body are not two - and there is no eternal indivisible self - so don't worry be happy and joyous!

In all my years and studies of the Dhamma I've never found a better intro to Buddhism than Walpola Rahula's. I've recommended and given away many copies to friends who wanted to know just what it are we Buddhists believe because this is the one book I won't have to make any excuses for or add any extra explanations to.

This is the clearest exposition of the Four Noble Truths that I've ever read, with a discussion of rebirth that actually made sense. I highly recommend this.

For being a relatively small book, this book certainly is a classic that has stood the test of time. If, like me, you are new to Buddhism, this book will help with understanding what it means to be a Buddhist.

Walpola Rahula's book is simply put, Theravada dogma which pushes the belief that the Buddha taught natthatta, namely, there is no self. Rahula makes a number of claims about what the Buddha taught which have no basis in original Buddhism. For example, Rahula gives a confusing account of the Five Aggregates (Pali, khandhas). He omits any serious discussion of why the Buddha does not identify his own self with the Five Aggregates or why the Buddha always deprecates the Five Aggregates declaring them, for example, to be the Buddhist devil, Mara the Evil One. It never seems to dawn on Rahula that the Buddha, in his many discourses, is deploying the via negativa (Grk. apophasis) with regard to the Five Aggregates. The Buddha is really saying that our true self is other than these illusory Five Aggregates; and that we should have a revulsion towards them instead of the self! This book deserves careful scrutiny. And let the beginner beware, this book draws a terribly nihilistic conclusion about Buddhism. It is ironic to note that three months before the Buddha dies he said the following: "My life is fully ripe, my life is at an end, I shall depart from you, I have made a refuge for the self."

Walpola Rahula's book is simply put, Theravada dogma which pushes the belief that the Buddha taught natthatta, namely, there is no self. Rahula makes a number of claims about what the Buddha taught which have no basis in original Buddhism. For example, Rahula gives a confusing account of the Five Aggregates (Pali, khandhas). He omits any serious discussion of why the Buddha does not identify his own self with the Five Aggregates or why the Buddha always deprecates the Five Aggregates declaring them, for example, to be the Buddhist devil, Mara the Evil One. It never seems to dawn on Rahula that the Buddha, in his many discourses, is deploying the via negativa (Grk. apophasis) with regard to the Five Aggregates. The Buddha is really saying that our true self is other than these illusory Five Aggregates; and that we should have a revulsion towards them instead of the self! This book deserves careful scrutiny. And let the beginner beware, this book draws a terribly nihilistic conclusion about Buddhism. It is ironic to note that three months before the Buddha dies he said the following: "My life is fully ripe, my life is at an end, I shall depart from you, I have made a refuge for the self."

Excellent Way to start to understand Buddhism, a book that one should study to realise and digest the basic teachings of the Buddha.

The first thing that strikes one upon reading this text is the entirely this-worldly character of Buddhist thought. Like the philosophers that we are familiar with in the West the Buddha ("The Enlightened One") does not claim to be other than a man or posses other than human knowledge. That is, the Buddha is not a god or a recipient of a god's revelation. Now, unlike our modern philosophers, the Buddha does not deny the existence of the gods; perhaps even more radically - he ignores them. According to our author, Walpola Sri Rahula, the Buddha teaches that, "man's emancipation depends on his own realization of the truth, and not on the benevolent grace of a god or any external power..." This does indeed remind one of Kant's definition of Enlightenment as adulthood. In a nutshell, no one can grant adulthood to you - you must achieve it yourself. In fact, according to our author, the Buddha goes so far as to advise us to be, "not led by the authority of religious texts..." And he adds that the Buddha "discovered and showed the Path to Liberation, Nirvana. But we must tread the Path ourselves." Any modern philosopher (Kant, Hegel, e.g.) would say the same of his path (i.e., philosophy).

Our author quotes with approval the following remark of one Buddhist monk (or bhikkhu) to another:

"without devotion, faith or belief, without liking or inclination, without hearsay or tradition, without considering apparent reasons, without delight in the speculations of opinions, I know and see that the cessation of becoming is Nirvana."

What is required for Buddhistic Enlightenment is the modesty of reason, not the enthusiasm and hubris of speculation, which always brings in its wake the indignation of warring factions. Buddhists tell us with deserved pride that there are no Buddhist wars, crusades or jihads. One comes to Enlightenment not by reciting some articles of faith but by thinking things through on ones own. Our author correctly reminds us that with Buddhism it "is always a question of knowing and seeing, and not that of believing."

So, the Buddha, the Enlightened One, brings knowledge - not faith. It seems to follow that it is not necessary to be a 'Buddhist' to achieve salvation, i.e., enlightenment. Indeed, our author goes on to say that if "the medicine is good, the disease will be cured. It is not necessary to know who prepared it, or where it came from." The comparison of the Buddhist teaching to a type of medicine is very interesting. Medicine is a very practical discipline, concerned with alleviating the suffering (Dukkha, this term can also mean: conflict, unsatisfactoriness, unsubstantiality, emptiness) of those it treats. If a person is healthy he needs no medicine at all. Thus what shined through to me (a non-Buddhist) in reading this book is that the Buddha teaches a series of behaviors, or, if you prefer, a circle of practices, whose only purpose is to protect the individual from all suffering - whether the suffering is produced by will, desire or thought. The Buddha clearly judged his teachings not on their truth content but rather on their results; that is, on the type of lives his followers would live. So, one could perhaps infer that when a patient is cured he no longer has the slightest need for the medicine...

Rahula's recounting of a story about what the Buddha replied when asked by a young Brahmin to explain "the idea of maintaining or protecting the truth" might illustrate the point:

'A man has a faith. If he says "This is my faith", so far he maintains truth. But by that he cannot proceed to the absolute conclusion: "This alone is Truth, and everything else is false".'
Rahula immediately adds, in his own voice, "In other words, a man may believe what he likes, and he may say 'I believe this'. So far he respects truth. But because of his belief or faith, he should not say that what he believes is alone the Truth, and everything else is false.
The Buddha says: 'To be attached to one thing (to a certain view) and to look down upon other things (views) as inferior - this the wise men call a fetter'."

Now, does this mean that all the ideologies and revelations that demand that everyone be an adherent of their particular view are, according to the Buddha, fetters? ...No? 'Oh, but the fetters are so sweet' we hear many replying, 'how could they be fetters?' Not only Christians and Liberals but also far too many Buddhists that one meets (at least here in the West) are very interested, if not obsessed, in what we in the West might call theology, ontology and metaphysics. That is, the Truth of what might be called the 'Whole' or the Cosmos. But did the Buddha share this obsession? Our author tells a wonderful story about what the Buddha knew and what he taught:

"He took a few leaves in his hand, and asked his disciples: 'What do you think? O bhikkhus? Which is more? These few leaves in my hand or the leaves in the forest over here?'
'Sir, very few are the leaves in the hand of the Blessed One, but indeed the leaves in the Simsapa forest over here are very much more abundant.'
'Even so, Bhikkhus, of what I have known I have told you only a little, what I have not told you is very much more. And why have I not told you (those things)? Because that is not useful... not leading to Nirvana. That is why I have not told you those things'."

Knowledge of the Whole, whatever it might be, does not lead to enlightenment! Today, we who are influenced by philosophy would, following the Buddha on this point, speak of the abyss that (seemingly) forever looms between theory and practice. But the 'mania' of theory nevertheless insists upon showing each leaf to every inhabitant in the forest in the name of some 'Truth', while the moderation of philosophical practice remains helpless when trying to control the strife that inevitably results between the various (Christianity, Socialism, Islam, and Fascism, e.g.) possessors of 'Truth'. We are now perhaps in a position to say that post-classical western philosophy (i.e., theory) has been the process of showing every leaf in the forest to everyone. - No matter what the consequences! One day it may well be said that western philosophy showed everything except the 'practical truths' that the Buddha held in his hand. ...One day.

Be that as it may, the "Buddha was not interested in discussing unnecessary metaphysical questions which are purely speculative and which create imaginary problems." In fact the Buddha compares teachings to a raft and then wonders at those that say, "This raft was a great help to me. With its aid I have crossed safely over [...] It would be good if I carry this raft on my head or my back wherever I go." Thus Man goes from the correct use of a raft (i.e., a teaching), to help one across a river, to the incorrect carrying of rafts when they are no longer needed. Note that these 'rafts' only have a practical value. What determines their value is purely the circumstances one happens to be in. But did the Buddha think of his own teachings in this manner? Our author tells a wonderful story of how the Buddha, in a debate with a representative of Jaina Mahavira, refused to allow the man to become a Buddhist! ("When Upali expressed his desire again, the Buddha requested him to continue to respect and support his old religious teachers as he used to.") Why? Well, Rahula says this is an instance demonstrating the Buddha's tolerance. In my opinion this explanation is incoherent; all of the Buddha's followers came from other religious traditions, was the Buddha being intolerant when he accepted them as his his followers? No, the reason the Buddha didn't let the Jain Upali convert was that he was sent to debate him by Jaina Mahavira himself and such a conversion could only lead to conflict. In other words, the Buddha looked at circumstances to evaluate this particular conversion and quite admirably concluded that circumstances trumped doctrine...

Another story told by Rahula shows the Buddha refusing to answer questions about the eternity and infinity of the universe, about the relation between soul and body, and existence after death put to him by Malunkyaputta, one of his own monks. Why doesn't the Buddha answer these questions?

"Because it is not useful, it is not fundamentally connected with the spiritual holy life, is not conducive to aversion, detachment, cessation, tranquility, deep penetration, full realization, Nirvana. That is why I have not told you about them.
Then what, Malunkyaputta, have I explained? I have explained dukkha, the cessation of dukkha, and the way leading to the cessation of dukkha. Why, Malunkyaputta, have I explained them? Because it is useful, is fundamentally connected with the spiritual holy life, is conducive to aversion, detachment, cessation tranquility, deep penetration, full realization, Nirvana. Therefore I have explained them."

So we see the overriding importance that the Buddha assigned to the practical and results. The Buddha did not preach some Truth, he presented a cure to suffering (dukkha). The Buddha laughed that people carry their rafts (ideologies and revelations) when they are no longer needed, but today, the various possessors of 'truth' even use the rafts as an excuse to hate and kill. In the Buddha the moderation inherent in philosophical practice triumphed, but in the world around us it is the mania of theory and speculation that has triumphed. If the moderation of practice triumphs in the future we can create a world in which all can live; if not, there is no future at all...

Rahula ends this book, fittingly, with the last words of the Buddha. "'Then, Bhikkhus, I address you now: Transient are conditioned things. Try to accomplish your aim with diligence." One stands in awe, and gratitude, of how one so dedicated to extinction (i.e., Nirvana) could so actively and tirelessly pursue his aim. Now, this book contains only a small selection (pp 92 - 138) of the sayings of the Buddha and it was from the last text in this section that this last quote comes from. There is also a very helpful, but still too brief, glossary with an even briefer bibliography also included. Rahula's study and the selected texts are based upon the earliest texts (the so-called Pali texts) of the Buddha's sayings that have come down to us.

The moderation, care and single-minded pursuit of his goal by the Buddha are what we should perhaps be most grateful for...

Walpola Rahula has done the collective American Sangha a great service in having written this precious volume. As clear as purified water and as accurate as a bulls-eye, this little book stands alone as an island of sanity in a vast ocean of confusion.

Americans have taken the Dharma and have muddied it and adulterated it with ideas from Christianity, Judaism, and New Age thinking. The result is not the Dharma, is not Buddhism. We also have DT Suzuki to thank for much of the nonsense parading as "Buddhism" in America. In an overzealous effort to make Buddhism appealing to Occidentals, Suzuki turned Buddhism into a quest for God, and thereby opened a Pandora's Box of virulent ills upon Buddhism in America and other English-speaking countries. This book clears away the nonsense that DT Suzuki and others set loose upon Buddhism in the western world, and for that Walpola Rahula has earned inestimable merit.

One cannot simply make up whatever one pleases and call it Buddhism. One has every right to believe whatever one pleases, but that does not make it Buddhism. For example, take the reviewer 'popcorn' and his 'neener neener neener' childishness concerning his belief in a Higher Power. This person will wander aimlessly through many lifetimes. If popcorn were to read the Three Baskets in English (they are available) he would discover Gotama did not deny the existence of the many gods. The Blessed One was quite open about the reality of these beings.

However, The Blessed One explained that the gods are themselves conditioned beings caught in Samsara, and will one day exhaust their merit and return to human form. Therefore, a belief in, or a relationship with, one of these "higher powers" cannot bring release from Samsara. The Buddha was adamant that one must do one's own work. To give up and rely on "other power" is to assure one will continue to be trapped in Samsara, no matter what clever word games one plays.

What "popcorn" and other American "Buddhists" need to understand is that the Supreme Reality in Buddhism is not a god or gods or a God or Goddess. The Supreme Reality in Buddhism is Nibbana/Nirvana, and Nibbana is not a person, place, or thing. Nibbana is not a god, gods, God, or Goddess, yet it is the Supreme Reality. Gotama used many adjectives to describe Nibbana such as Freedom and Safety. He also described Nibbana as the Unborn, Ungrown, Unconditioned, and Uncompounded, the Absolute. He did not describe Nibbana as a God or gods, or even as the 'Ground of Being" or 'Source.' These are American interpolations into the Dharma.

To think a god, gods, or a God or Goddess is the Supreme Reality is to negate Buddhism. It is to shake one's fist in the face of the Blessed One. One is free to do that of course, but one should not do so and call oneself a Buddhist.

"Popcorn" is a good label for American Buddhism for the most part. Popcorn is light, airy, lacking in substance and sustenance. Such is the "popcorn Dharma" of American "Buddhism."

What The Buddha Taught should be required reading in all Sanghas throughout America, regardless of one's Dharma Gate. Why? Because Walpola Rahula accurately and succinctly lays out the bare essentials, the basics of Buddhism that Gotama taught. If one cannot even agree with the basics as taught by Gotama/Gautama, how then is one a Buddhist? Buddhism is not about making up our own way and calling it Buddhism, but Americans are convinced this is so. Nor does Buddhism consist of picking the parts of the Buddha's Dharma that one likes and rejecting the rest, or inserting one's own ideas and calling the result 'Buddhism.'

Each of us is a potential Buddha, even "popcorn." However, potentiality and actuality are poles apart. "Popcorn" makes great sense to himself/herself, but "popcorns" potential as a Buddha lies utterly dormant. I would rather follow the Way of The Buddha than the way of the popcorn. This book makes it wondrously clear what it means to be a Buddha or Arhant. I meet many Mahayana Buddhists online who are convinced they are already enlightened simply because they believe they are. Yet they continue to walk in the path of Ignorance and Craving, being no different than any other person who is immersed in and deluded by Samsara. If they would read this book perhaps they would actually take steps toward Awakening.

I am no longer a Buddhist. Let me make that clear. I disagree with the Buddha on one central basic teaching, so I did the honest and correct thing: I resigned from the Buddhist priesthood (I was a priest of Hongaku Jodo) and ceased calling myself a Buddhist. Yet I still understand the Dharma and venerate The Blessed One, and will stand up for the actual Dharma all of my days. I will not present my own ideas as 'Buddhism.' It is my wish that all Americans follow this example.

In closing, Walpola Rahula has earned great merit in this work. May it be used to clear American 'Buddhism' of the non-Buddhist clutter and nonsense it has acquired.

Namaste,
Nathan (Once known as Venerable Lantien)

the only thing i got out of this was the noble eightfold path. it gets way too dictatorial on the issue of a higher power, saying that, beyond any doubt, there isn't one. well, that's hogwash regarding what the buddha said. the buddha said not to worry about such questions. instead, a person should use his techniques to destress their lives, their minds, etc. i believe in a universal higher power AND the noble eightfold path. so there.

This book is an amazing introduction to Buddhism, instead of all the new age rubbish (that is as far from Buddhism as the Hippi return to nature was far from the Native American's way of life)it presents a simple and I'd say uplifting summary of the major themes and theories at the heart of the original teachings of the Buddha.
Well written, simple and truly compelling, this presentation will be very useful to anyone studying religion or precisely Buddhism. It doesn't pretend to be exhaustive but still follows a very demanding line that tries to avoid any cliché and easy summary. It doesn't present the schism between Theravada and Mahayana traditions since it focuses on the original basis.
I recommend it to anyone curious about Buddhism.

What the Buddha Taught was written in 1959. It is a little dry, but goes right to the core of Buddhism.
It is continually being printed in new editions. I first came across this book in a religion course in college. It is written like a college text, and is written to educate, not inspire.

I've been studying the Dhamma for over a quarter century, and have been fortunate in having a number of wonderful teachers. In my opinion, Rahula's book is the best introduction available. The book is also quite useful as it is the ultimate "briefer course" on the subject. Extremely well-ordered and organized, the book presents all the basic concepts and tenents of Buddhism, in concise and easily accessible explanations. Noteworthy is Rahula's blessed blend of economy and comprehensiveness. In less than 150 pages, an average reader can be well-versed in this magnificent teaching as it was originally disemminated. The entire book can be read in a couple of sittings (great for students under pressure, reads like higher order cliff notes!).

Rahula, a Theravadan Monk, begins his discussion by relating the life of the Buddha (the dhamma) and continues with an exposition of "The Buddhist Attitude of Mind". Here he discusses with brevity and precision the purpose and essence of the Buddha's thought and enlightenment. In the following four chapters he discusses the details of that enlightenment, "The Four Noble Truths", which is simultaneuosly a map of "The Middle Way", the path the Buddha has prescribed to reach freedom (nibbana, which is Pali for the Sanskrit, nirvana). The next chapter deals with the most difficult concept for Western students, Anatta (the idea of 'no-soul'). In this chapter, there is also a clear and understandable discussion of 'paticcasamupada' which is often called in older English translations 'dependent-arising' or 'co-dependent arising'. This idea is the Buddha's theory of causation and is the central philosophical concept in Buddhism. Rahula translates it as 'conditioned genesis', but much more to the point is the contemporary Vietnamese Buddhist Thich Nhat Hanh's translation of the idea as 'Interbeing'. However, in brevity, focus, and comprehensiveness, Rahula's explanation is most helpful. Following are chapters on meditation, mindfulness, and the potential helpfulness of Buddha's teaching for the contemporary world.
Then, we get forty pages of selections from the most essential Buddhist texts, including Buddha's first talk after attaining enlightenment, the wonderful Dhammapada, the Metta-sutta, and much else. The book includes a comprehensive and informative glossary of Pali (the scriptural language of Buddhism in contrast to Sanskrit which is Vedic/Hindu)words, excellent Bibliography, and complete Index.
The Theravadan teaching is the original teaching of Buddhism as close as the world's scholars and devotees can seem to get to how Gotama Buddha taught it. You simply cannot do better that this book for quickly attaining a foundational knowledge of Buddhism.

It's difficult to think of a better brief 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 writing style is reasonably good, and the index and glossary are excellent if a bit out of date (one excellent 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."
One caveat: Mr Rahula seems to argue that the Buddha's views were atheistic. In my opinion, given the Buddha's admonition to investigate-for-yourself, his non-dogmatic statement that he had simply not seen a transcendent deity (rather than saying he knew there was no such deity), and his acceptance of some revelation and authority in addition to his reliance on analysis, I would argue the Buddha's views were probably agnostic rather than atheistic.