This was a quick read about how to coexist with people. I like what the author had to say about community, suffering, and how to not take anything personally, but overall I found this book lacking. I didn’t have a problem with what he was saying, it was how he was saying it and how it could be interpreted and easily misconstrued that I found problematic. The author has an ambitious main idea, but failed at developing it well.
I will disclose that I am Christian, and I have studied theology and religion, so that of course influences how I feel about this book. The author “cherry picks” ideas from Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism and tries to unify them, but in doing so they are each diluted. I don’t know the author’s background but I felt his understanding of Christianity to be shallow. He had so much to say about loving/helping others because in doing so we are really loving/helping ourselves, which is true, but overall couldn’t reconcile the many paradoxes that he presents so flippantly. It comes off as flippant because of his writing style, almost like “I just described a paradox, haha, that doesn’t make sense, isn’t that neat? Nothing matters!” Maybe that’s a bit harsh but he won’t take it personally. It is fine to present a paradox, but I felt like he needed to dig in to get at the meaning and create a deeper discussion rather than knowingly contradict himself and then happily move on to the next idea.
Because I am Christian, I did not agree with how he described “the no-self, we are nothing, we are all gods.” I know he means to describe how to surrender and accept the truth (what is the truth?) but he describes this in a way that instead of leading to honest humility could easily lead to self-worship. I don’t think this is his intention, but it seems he hasn’t thought it through enough to realize the implications of how he is portraying these ideas. Again, it reads as flippant.
And finally, I disagree with picking and choosing what to believe and ignoring some ideas because contemplating them is uncomfortable or difficult, which I think this book is encouraging without the author’s intention. In America particularly I think this is a widespread problem. Too many people live in their own echo chambers, consuming only media and ideas that they already agree with, and avoiding anything or anyone that challenges their beliefs. This is dividing people and won’t be solved by simply ignoring what makes us all different, which is one way this book could be interpreted (denying fundamental differences in beliefs/values/ways of life because “we are all one.”) In any philosophy or religion, I think it is the difficult contemplation, the “wrestling” with ideas that challenges our worldview, our self-image, that leads to opening our minds and seeing ourselves and others in a gentler, more truthful way. This struggle must be sought and engaged with rather than avoided. Maybe the author has done this, maybe not, but I think we all have to go through it ourselves, it’s not something you can read in a book, and I feel this book unintentionally encourages taking the path of unicorns and rainbows and toxic positivity rather than the deep, difficult personal contemplation and exploration of ideas that leads to actual spiritual growth.