A. (p.432) “From India [Buddhism] traveled north into Nepal, Tibet and China, developing in the process into a new type of Buddhism, Mahayana.”
1. Buddhism traveled into China first and subsequently Tibet inherited Buddhism, but only after a long period of time (Tibet didn’t become Buddhist until 7 ce).
2. Mahayana was conceived in India and was established as a distinct tradition by 2 ce. It is erroneous to say that it ‘developed in the process of travel.” For example, the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra,’ a staple Mahayana sutra, was developed in India.
B. (p.433) “[On the idea of karma] Some schools of ancient Indian philosophy took this idea to its logical conclusion – the Jains, for example, decided that the best thing to do in life was nothing at all.”
1. This is complete nonsense. The Jains have a very rigorous and demanding ethical system which involves the purging of material defilements (ajīva). Besides, there are no religions that require people to do nothing so the whole idea is absurd (except, perhaps, Daoism – although even this would be a bold oversimplification).
C. (p.433) “The exact route to enlightenment and nirvana (1) is long and difficult – at least according to the older schools of Buddhism – requiring millions of lifetimes. Exactly what nirvana is meant to be remains famously vague. He compared a person entering nirvana to a flame being extinguished – the flame doesn’t go anywhere, but the process of combustion ceases.”
1. Enlightenment is nirvana. They are synonymous, although it would be easy to think they are separate. As for the latter part of the paragraph, it is true that nirvana is difficult to understand, but in Theravada it is a kind of mental state. Sometimes people confuse it with a Christian heaven, but this is an error on the part of western interpreters.
D. (p.433) “Otherwise they can hope for little except to lead a moral life and hope to be reborn as a monk themselves at some point in the future.”
1. Okay, but a little oversimplified. In Theravada there is no reason why a layperson cannot realize nirvana. It is only that a monk is able to dedicate himself to the task of realization. In practice, most laypeople do not bother with such aspirations.
E. (p.434) “As Theravada Buddhism developed it came to be believed that the Buddha himself was only the latest of a series of Buddhas – Sri Lankan tradition claims that there have been either 16 or 24 previous Buddhas…(1)” “Instead of trying to emulate the Buddha, devotees simply worship one or more of the Mahayana deities and reap the spiritual rewards. Not surprisingly, this much more popular – and much less demanding – form of the religion became widely established in the place of the Theravada tradition. (2)”
1. Theravada did not “develop” in this way (whatever that means). The idea of past and future Buddhas is canonical and an artifact of the Jatakas - the Buddhist birth stories – as well as the more authoritative Nikaya texts. Also, in Theravada there are 24 Buddhas so I don’t know where 16 comes from.
2. The latter claim about Mahayana is thoroughly inaccurate. Some Mahayana Buddhists do ‘worship’ Bodhisattvas and Buddhas, but usually for the same reason lay Theravada Buddhists do (for karma). Generally, Mahayana adherents precisely want to emulate the Buddha (arguably, unlike the Theravadans) and believe that they can realize Buddhahood themselves (something Theravadan Buddhists disagree with since they believe there can only be one Buddha in any given epoch). It si also wrong to say Mahayana ‘replaced’ Theravada Buddhism. Mahayana countries largely did not experience Theravada Buddhism at all. The Mahayana/Theravada distinction is rather more subtle than the rendering provided in the RG.
F. (p.435) “Devotees visit their local temple as and when they please, saying prayers (1) at the dagoba or Buddha shrine (or that of another god), perhaps offering flowers, lighting a candle or reciting (or having monks recite) Buddhist scriptures, an act known as pirith (2).” “Although Theravada holds that the Buddha himself should not be worshipped, many Sinhalese effectively do so (3).”
1. It is not right to refer to Buddha veneration as “prayers”. This implies that Buddhists expect the Buddha to grant the prayer as the Christian God is meant to. However, no Theravada Buddhist believes that the Buddha is alive. He was a man, and now he is dead. What he left behind, i.e. his spiritual ideas, should be respected however. This process of respect and veneration (through flowers, lighting incense and following appropriate rituals) results in positive karma accumulation.
2. When monks recite sutras or talk about Buddhism publicly, this is known as bana. Pirith is only when laypeople give dana (i.e. venerate monks or a Buddha image through the giving of food items, incense or flowers). If a layperson recites sutra this is also known as pirith. The monk/lay distinction is important.
3. The last sentence is an error that arises from a misinterpretation of the notion of prayer. It is wrong to say that Buddhism prohibits the worship of the Buddha (whoever said that?). The sacred texts explicitly promote it (for example, see the Dīgha-Nikāya). No Buddhist would expect intervention from Buddha, of course, since he is dead – although there is no prohibition from believing that (no actual Theravada Buddhists do of course). All of this is grounded in a Christian approach to Buddhism.
G. (p439) “Sri Lankan Buddhist temples (viharas or viharayas) come in bewildering range of shapes and sizes…etc.”
1. This is a bog error. In Sri Lanka, a vihara is a monastery (a place where monks are trained or live). Technically, a pansila (or just pansil) is the name for a temple.
1. Buddhism traveled into China first and subsequently Tibet inherited Buddhism, but only after a long period of time (Tibet didn’t become Buddhist until 7 ce).
2. Mahayana was conceived in India and was established as a distinct tradition by 2 ce. It is erroneous to say that it ‘developed in the process of travel.” For example, the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra,’ a staple Mahayana sutra, was developed in India.
B. (p.433) “[On the idea of karma] Some schools of ancient Indian philosophy took this idea to its logical conclusion – the Jains, for example, decided that the best thing to do in life was nothing at all.”
1. This is complete nonsense. The Jains have a very rigorous and demanding ethical system which involves the purging of material defilements (ajīva). Besides, there are no religions that require people to do nothing so the whole idea is absurd (except, perhaps, Daoism – although even this would be a bold oversimplification).
C. (p.433) “The exact route to enlightenment and nirvana (1) is long and difficult – at least according to the older schools of Buddhism – requiring millions of lifetimes. Exactly what nirvana is meant to be remains famously vague. He compared a person entering nirvana to a flame being extinguished – the flame doesn’t go anywhere, but the process of combustion ceases.”
1. Enlightenment is nirvana. They are synonymous, although it would be easy to think they are separate. As for the latter part of the paragraph, it is true that nirvana is difficult to understand, but in Theravada it is a kind of mental state. Sometimes people confuse it with a Christian heaven, but this is an error on the part of western interpreters.
D. (p.433) “Otherwise they can hope for little except to lead a moral life and hope to be reborn as a monk themselves at some point in the future.”
1. Okay, but a little oversimplified. In Theravada there is no reason why a layperson cannot realize nirvana. It is only that a monk is able to dedicate himself to the task of realization. In practice, most laypeople do not bother with such aspirations.
E. (p.434) “As Theravada Buddhism developed it came to be believed that the Buddha himself was only the latest of a series of Buddhas – Sri Lankan tradition claims that there have been either 16 or 24 previous Buddhas…(1)” “Instead of trying to emulate the Buddha, devotees simply worship one or more of the Mahayana deities and reap the spiritual rewards. Not surprisingly, this much more popular – and much less demanding – form of the religion became widely established in the place of the Theravada tradition. (2)”
1. Theravada did not “develop” in this way (whatever that means). The idea of past and future Buddhas is canonical and an artifact of the Jatakas - the Buddhist birth stories – as well as the more authoritative Nikaya texts. Also, in Theravada there are 24 Buddhas so I don’t know where 16 comes from.
2. The latter claim about Mahayana is thoroughly inaccurate. Some Mahayana Buddhists do ‘worship’ Bodhisattvas and Buddhas, but usually for the same reason lay Theravada Buddhists do (for karma). Generally, Mahayana adherents precisely want to emulate the Buddha (arguably, unlike the Theravadans) and believe that they can realize Buddhahood themselves (something Theravadan Buddhists disagree with since they believe there can only be one Buddha in any given epoch). It si also wrong to say Mahayana ‘replaced’ Theravada Buddhism. Mahayana countries largely did not experience Theravada Buddhism at all. The Mahayana/Theravada distinction is rather more subtle than the rendering provided in the RG.
F. (p.435) “Devotees visit their local temple as and when they please, saying prayers (1) at the dagoba or Buddha shrine (or that of another god), perhaps offering flowers, lighting a candle or reciting (or having monks recite) Buddhist scriptures, an act known as pirith (2).” “Although Theravada holds that the Buddha himself should not be worshipped, many Sinhalese effectively do so (3).”
1. It is not right to refer to Buddha veneration as “prayers”. This implies that Buddhists expect the Buddha to grant the prayer as the Christian God is meant to. However, no Theravada Buddhist believes that the Buddha is alive. He was a man, and now he is dead. What he left behind, i.e. his spiritual ideas, should be respected however. This process of respect and veneration (through flowers, lighting incense and following appropriate rituals) results in positive karma accumulation.
2. When monks recite sutras or talk about Buddhism publicly, this is known as bana. Pirith is only when laypeople give dana (i.e. venerate monks or a Buddha image through the giving of food items, incense or flowers). If a layperson recites sutra this is also known as pirith. The monk/lay distinction is important.
3. The last sentence is an error that arises from a misinterpretation of the notion of prayer. It is wrong to say that Buddhism prohibits the worship of the Buddha (whoever said that?). The sacred texts explicitly promote it (for example, see the Dīgha-Nikāya). No Buddhist would expect intervention from Buddha, of course, since he is dead – although there is no prohibition from believing that (no actual Theravada Buddhists do of course). All of this is grounded in a Christian approach to Buddhism.
G. (p439) “Sri Lankan Buddhist temples (viharas or viharayas) come in bewildering range of shapes and sizes…etc.”
1. This is a bog error. In Sri Lanka, a vihara is a monastery (a place where monks are trained or live). Technically, a pansila (or just pansil) is the name for a temple.
We also visited an important Hindu location called Pashupatinath which was another Varanasi-like place where people get cremated. It was characterized by a hospice (where people die), a series of ghats were the bodies are cremated, and a Ganges tributory where the remains are disposed. There was also a network of caves up-river where holy men, sadhus, meditatate and continually smoke weed. I've since discovered that being a Hindu sadhu is kind of an entrepeneurial activity and seems to have little to do with moksha (liberation) and more to do with rupee (cha-ching). A bunch of sadhus posed for us and we were required to give them some money. We gave them about 20 rupees. They were annoyed by this since they saw we had more money. They seemed to be involved in a similar racket in Varanasi. We also spotted someone being cremated on the ghats. The guide said, "You can take a photo -the family isn't here." We declined, although the ghat subsequently ended up in an image taken at distance. Otherwise, the site was characterized by a lot of phallic paraphenalia (which I always find a weird aspect of Hinduism given how conservative Hindus actually are - I suspect these sexual aspects emerges as a function of the importance of marriage and the relation between man and women in living Hindu society).
Kapilavastu is where Buddha was brought up and raised. It is, reputably, the place where he realized that his life of luxury was an illusion and something that should be overcome. All that remains of the palace of Kapilavastu is a very faint ruin, but the gateway which Buddha would have rode out on in his chariot still remains. Although, there was very little there, it was still a unique place and seemed relatively un-plied by tourists. We also stumbled across a peculiar little kovil built into a tree, and a crazy old woman with a cane lurking outside. The image inside was of an elephant - a rather peculiar image as far as I can tell, and I could not figure out what deity it represented. 
