These were the dark ages of Vedic religion, and the defenders of the Vedas were transforming it into an almighty which could not be challenged. These were the right circumstances for a new religion or a modification to the existing one, which is what helped Buddha to amass followers at such a pace. This is akin to St. Paul marketing Jesus’ sacrifices to bring christianity to the fore in the darker times of Roman Empire, and the Prophet doing this in Arabia in the 8th century, when the Arabian peninsula faced increasing income inequality. ‘Someones loss is another persons gain’ aptly justifies the founding of new religions or practices. I abstain from calling Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Stoicism or Vedic philosophies as religion because these were practices to be done. They have no central identify or tenets of laws to adhere too, but are more introverted and personal. This - personal or societal - are distinct characteristics in identifying a religion from a belief or cult from a practice. I would extend the same laxity to Spinoza’s god also, but he does dedicate and explicitly mention god in his treatise which prohibits me from inserting my bias into his clear statement. Religion comprises a set of beliefs where units of society must/do come together in congregation to perform the same set of practices - Mass in Christianity, 5 prayers in Islam, etc. -, thus, aggregating the beliefs. Buddhism, Hinduism, et al., have no precedent for congregation. Every shared belief - Diwali, Holi, Buddh Purnima, etc. - are calculated by the leaders of the religion on a particular date along with a time window for the most auspicious cosmos setting - when the cosmos energy are at its best. Thereafter, every person is free to practice at its discretion. Additionally, there is no rigorous set of practices to be diligently followed by everyone, but everyone is free to do it his way. Nevertheless, I digress from the book. I really like the simple practice of meditating and finding answers to the eternal questions. Its the inner self and mind control which makes a person happy and content. For the mental strength of a person defines his character. A person is happy with a morsel of food, while a king isn’t happy with his lavish dinners. It lies in the mind from what a person desires and craves for. This is common in the now peaceful philosophies ad ever peaceful Stoicism philosophy - Lean inward to be happy, and not outward. I prefer Buddha’s Nibbana and karma. However, before I give complete credit and uniqueness to it, I have to delve deeper and in more ancient vedas and upanishads to see if Buddha is the true originator of it. I say this, because Karma compensates in the same life is more of concept from Mahabharata - Yudhistra at the gates of heaven - which was compiled over a period before and after Buddha’s life. Did he refine it or were there other scholars who were in the process and he accelerated it into its final form. With respect to Nibbana - salvation -, I find no reason to believe that this is a literal rip off from Vedic philosophy. While he has improved it with a lack of re-incarnation - and rightly so -, but when I think of it, I am unaware if Rama in the original Ramayana was a re-incarnation or not. Coming to Ram’s story, its very familiar to Buddha story, but while the former is forced into exile, the other volunteered for it. Both were royals, and were allegedly loved by their followers. Could it be that Buddha’s renunciation a refinement and further upgrade of Ram’s forced exile to market the concept of ‘Sanyasi’ stage of life to the masses. It is highly likely, that during the dark ages of the Vedic philosophy, scholars needed a new marketing idea to sell their doctrines to masses. One must remain aware of the fact that Buddha was not a perennial royal but it is sheer luck that his father was in the hot seat of kingship when he decided to renunciate. The Sakhyas had a rotating kingship for every 2 years, and when Buddha decided to renunciate, his father was in the kingship. One must question the authenticity of the scholarly works about Buddha’s renunciation because the book states that his father really tried his best to force princely duties and actions on Buddha to which Buddha the Scholar never adhered to? Could it be that the King actually sent him away in disgust which has been wrapped into a story of self-sacrifice for the masses to adopt? Isn’t this spinning facts the only common truth in the entire history of human kind? We do not know with certainty, but I raise this doubt and the others below because of so many common anecdotes with Buddha’s life and Rams story in exile. The method of conversion of people with mere discussion and charm is similar to how Ram made allies and followers in his exile, while Arjuna used muscle in the Mahabharata. One can dispute the timing of Mahabharata, but Ramayana is definitely older than Buddha. Where Buddha does overcome Rama is that Buddha never returned to society, while Ram did. Ahimsa - the act of non-violence is again very similar to Mahabharata - where one is allowed to kill in defence, and defence of honour and rights. While scholars gladly project that Buddha said never to kill, its bollocks. Buddha preached that one must abstain from violence is there is no need. This was probably exploited by Ashoka - a later Mauryan ruler in India - to spread Buddhism to Thailand, Indonesia and Japan. It has continued to prevail there and peacefully, only in the recent past. Similarly, the Burmese - a Budhsist descendant country - have continued to persecute Rohingyas under this pretext. These violent incidents are typical of any new religion barring stoicism where the new followers of the then young religion kill dissidents and opponents until they reach a critical mass. After reaching this critical mass, and destroying the culture of their precedents, they start to preach the same or similar philosophies of what they had replaced. A story common across all political upbringings in history. I disagree with Buddha’s ahimsa. For me Ahimsa pure non-violence barring the self-defence of life. I do not think sacrificing animals for religious offerings is legit, and it should not have been allowed by Buddha. But, I believe looking at the latter stages of Buddha’s life - when he is allegedly performing miracles, and can foresee the exact dates of people dying, etc. -, he had become more political and wanted to defend his legacy. In order to do so, he probably started to compromise with the Brahmans about certain practices - sacrifices - being one of them. Buddha’s concept of inheritance is most merit based than any system I have read or made myself aware in life. Its very similar to the selection of the next pope where the Sangha - union of Buddhist monks - must decide amongst themselves who will be the next. But, as organisations - (more modern word for Sangha) - gain fame and power, they are bound to be corrupt. Gradually, this leads to stupid practices of caste systems, and selecting the Dalai Lama based on re-incarnation. Isn’t it absolutely hypocritical that Buddha did not believe in re-incarnation of soul, but Buddhists elect their leader based on the concept of re-incarnation. To clarify Buddha’s reincarnation, he believed that there is no soul but on death the matter constituents of one’s body - things that make up one’s body - are reborn as another body. Furthermore, Buddha clarifies this that the new body may or may not have the same moral attitude of the previous being, and hence, to me the modern day selection process of the next lama is a corrupted process. Additionally, with Dalai Lama telling his followers, where he is going to be born next, I believe its another form of corruption in the institution. But, I guess this is the natural course of life for any philosophy. Challenge status quo, amass critical number of followers, compromise on the founding principles, let this sink in, and then corrupt it to benefit only the leaders of the organization. This is the third universal truth of life besides Death and Taxes. I my read as critical of Buddhism and its hater. However, this is not truth. As an unbiased critic, I have only presented the flaws in it. For this was Buddha’s teaching at the start. Find the truth by questioning. Personally, I find his teachings really amazing, insightful and something one must practice maybe even for a very short period of time in his life. I believe these can bring mindfulness, calmness and peace in one’s life. I can personally vouch for meditation and asking questions. Questions help found answers which bring soothes to mind and body. While people think answering questions is a waste of time, I think life’s purpose is to raise and answer questions to satisfy one’s quest over self. This in my opinion was the essence of Buddha’s teachings. Towards the latter stages of life, he did not preach new things but defended what he had learned. I find this very common even today, where great artists and scientists reap the benefits of their creations in the 20s and 30s for the remainder of their life. That’s corruption and not merit based. One must continue to create to make the world a better place with new ideas and thoughts. For only the can one improve till the end of his life. I loved the book but it has raised doubt’s about Buddha been a real person or atleast the incidents in his life been real. I allege the latter part because most of his life was not observed by common man. He lived in forests and would appear suddenly anywhere, then disappear and appear. Only when his vihar - homes - are built did he settle down prominently in the eyes of the public. Thereafter, he started to perform miracles of healing, etc. Doesn’t this sound familiar to Prophet’s life? The difference is that Buddha did not claim to be a prophet or have revelations from God to him or the Chosen One like Moses. I guess his followers had done a very good market study of the Indian philosophies and realised people won’t believe the bullshit of God. I also like his forgiveness aspect which is similar to Vedic religions. In conclusion, I can agree that Buddhism has a lot to offer to society especially in these stressful times.