meta-title: Buddha

I agree with everything Karen Armstrong writes about theology, except that she believes in God and I don't. Given that we agree on so many other things, it seems churlish to worry about such a minor quibble.

I'm not sure which religion she is. Armstrong used to be a Catholic nun; she has won awards from Muslim theologians; and she teaches at a rabbinical college in London.

[It was subsequently pointed out to me that Armstrong does not in fact believe in God. So my intuition as to her mindset was correct. And my assumption that any teacher at a theological college must believe in God was wrong. How naive!]

Armstrong has written widely on religious subjects. Her previous works include a study of fundamentalism and a general history of monotheism (see at end). These both cover Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which Armstrong effectively treats as components of the one overall monotheist tradition. She is the only author I know that can make the doctrine of the Trinity even remotely seem to make sense [History of God, especially p116-118].

Now she has written a book about Buddhism.

Formally, this is a life of the Buddha, but it contains within it an account of the Dhamma. It is organised chronologically, starting with the Renunciation and ending with the Parinibbana. At suitable points, Armstrong puts in her take on the Four Noble Truths, Dependent Origination, and so on.

She seems to have learnt a reasonable amount of Pali in order to write the book, and shows considerable acquaintance with the Pali canon. She does not refer to other sources for the canon (e.g. the Sarvastavidin canon).

Generally the account of Buddhism will seem familiar to a Theravadin reader, being generally an exposition of the Pali canon. Mahayanists would presumably place less emphasis on the historical Buddha as an introduction to Buddhism anyway. Armstrong is (as in her other works) sympathetic and attempts to understand Buddhism from within its own context.

In several places, Armstrong attempts to compare Buddhism to Judaism and Christianity. She contrasts Nibbana with the Christian heaven [p7] and compares it to 'shalom' [p13]. She compares Jewish and Yogic experiences of 'the Sacred' [p54], and the lives of Jesus and the Buddha [p122].

One minor error: Armstrong [p145] has eight-precept laypeople not eating solid food until midday, when it should be not after midday. (The precept has 'vikalabhojana', at the forbidden time which the Buddha glosses as "do not partake of food in the evening" AN8.41).

There are whole sub-genres of lives of the Buddha and elementary introductions to Buddhism. No doubt someone should do a PhD analysing and comparing them on historical principles (someone probably has).

Bear in mind: Armstrong is English and the English seem to have a relative tendency to the Theravada, or more specifically to the Pali canon (for historical reasons: the British ruled Ceylon and Burma); Americans by comparison are more inclined to the Mahayana (stronger Japanese influence). I would have though Amidism more congenial to Christians, but perhaps they are looking for something different from belief in God.

As to the Theravadin/Mahayana thing, there are several issues.

There seems to be some agreement that the Victorians were attracted to the Theravada because it coincided with their worldview. For futher discussion, I will defer to anyone who has more evidence on this subject than me.

As to the merits of a faith-based approach, this is probably a matter of individual temperament and personality. We all have our own agendas to work through, and there is no point in insisting on the One True Way(TM) to the Dhamma.

As to the reasons why the Mahayana developed, I suspect that the main reason was the changing nature of Indian society and culture. Different problems led to different solutions. We have our own problems and we are developing our own Buddhism. Which brings me back to Armstrong's historical approach to religion.

To Armstrong, there is only the generic God --- Yah or El are just names. As cognates of 'god' are found in many Germanic languages, it must predate the 'wandering of the peoples' (400 AD or so). The Christianisation of England began with S. Augustine (of Canterbury, not the author of the Confessions). As to the use of the singular, English is only copying Greek (`ο θεοs).

Please note that the Theravada also has a tradition of ritual. Indeed, it is that tradition that western Buddhists often find the least congenial part of the Theravada. And Armstrong (to return to the topic of the this review) does not discuss ritual very much.

Armstrong, Karen. . date of publication, publisher, place of publication. {paper|hard}back. number of pages pages.