A large portion of the text is redundant. For example, there is a teaching towards the end of the book that says the following: there are many followers of the Buddha who have attained perfect enlightenment via the Dhamma. It isn't merely the Buddha himself who has attained enlightenment via the Dhamma. Among those arahant disciples of the Buddha are many men and many women, not just men or just women. Among the lay disciples of the Buddha are many non-returners, once-returners and stream-enterers. Among each of these are many men and many women. If none of the Buddha's disciples had attained enlightenment, this would cast doubt on the teachings, but the fact that many of them have attained enlightenment is a reason to be confident in the teachings.
That is all the teaching says. Yet, it is multiple pages long. It manages to be multiple pages long by repeating chunks of irrelevant filler. The teaching begins by giving us a definition of an arahant (one who has attained enlightenment) which is itself too long - the definition is "when a monk has abandoned craving, cut it off at the root, made it like a palm stump, done away with it so that it is no longer subject to future arising, that monk is an arahant with taints destroyed, one who has lived the spiritual life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached his own goal, utterly destroyed the fetters of existence, and is completely liberated through final knowledge" - and then, rather than simply using the word "arahant" to refer to such people, writes out the definition each time instead. So instead of Vacchagotta asking the Buddha "are there any arahants among the disciples of the Master Gotama?", he asks "Apart from Master Gotama, is there any monk, Master Gotama's disciple, who by realising it for himself with direct knowledge, in this present life enters upon and dwells in the liberation of mind, liberation by wisdom, that is taintless with the destruction of the taints?" This question is not just a longer version of "are there any arahants among the disciples of Master Gotama?", but it actually reduces the question to "are there any arahants among the male disciples of Master Gotama?", so the question will have to be asked again for women. And instead of saying "yes, there are many", the Buddha says "There are, Vaccha, not only one hundred, or two or three or four or five hundred, but far more monks, my disciples, who by realising it for themselves with direct knowledge, in this present life enter upon and dwell in the liberation of mind, liberation by wisdom, that is taintless with the destruction of the taints." This exchange is repeated for female arahants, male non-returners, female non-returners, male once-returners or stream-enterers, and female once-returners or stream-enterers. Then, instead of saying "if only Master Gotama were accomplished in this Dhamma, the Dhamma would be insufficient, but since Master Gotama and many of his followers are accomplished, the Dhamma is sufficient", Vaccha first says "Master Gotama, if only Master Gotama were accomplished in this Dhamma, but no monks were accomplished, then this spiritual life would be deficient in that respect; but because Master Gotama and monks are accomplished in this Dhamma, this spiritual life is thus complete in that respect." And then he repeats this statement several more times, each time including one more from the list monks, nuns, laymen non-returners, laywomen non-returners, laymen once-returners or stream-enterers, and laywomen once-returners or stream-enters. Again, they do not use the words "non-returners", "once-returners" or "stream-enterers", or indeed "arahants", and instead write out a description of what that means every time they want to use those words.
It is rather painful to read such a bloated body of text, and that's coming from a Stephen King fan. This really is the standard writing style throughout the book. Not only does it make the book extraordinarily boring, but it actually impedes one's ability to understand the teachings. What could and should be succinct is instead like a great haystack through which the reader must rummage endlessly in search of a few needles. I realise I'm criticising the Pali Suttas themselves, rather than the writing style of the author of this book, but the book consists in large part of the Suttas - that is indeed the point of the book - and the Suttas are as poorly written as I have described. At the very least this book has given me an appreciation of why it may not be such a good idea to read Buddhist teachings "in the Buddha's words": serious editorial work is required to make the Buddha's words palatable.
One major advantage of certain aspects of Buddhism is that they don't actually require faith. One does not need to have faith that meditation is a way to eradicate suffering. Instead, one can try it, see for oneself that it at least reduces suffering and frees oneself from suffering to a certain extent, and conclude that continued practice would likely continue to reduce suffering. Moreover, one can get glimpses of total freedom, or selflessness, and become certain that meditation is a way to eradicate suffering. The "trying it out" does not require faith, it just requires an estimation of the probability of success that is high enough to warrant spending time trying it out, and this probability can be demonstrated to be high enough by listening to honest people who have tried it, with success, in the past. And the conclusion that continued practice is likely to further reduce suffering is merely logical. It is not knowledge, but again it is a high enough probability that continued practice is warranted. In the case of glimpsing total freedom, there is knowledge. The Buddha emphasises that one can see the Dhamma for oneself, through direct experience. This is, of course, a prominent theme in this book. However, the Buddha includes in the set of things which can be known by direct experience claims which are unlikely to be true. For example, the Buddha claims that during the course of enlightenment a person will obtain knowledge of all of their past lives. Of course I cannot prove that this is false, and it would be easy for a Buddhist to dismiss my criticism on the grounds that I am not accomplished enough in meditation to have remembered my past lives yet, but I find it extraordinarily unlikely that we live more than once. This puts an essentially unbridgeable gap between me and Buddhism. For one thing, the Buddha has made a false claim. One of the central tenets of Buddhism is that the Buddha is perfect, but a perfect being could not make a false claim. This casts doubt over the whole teaching. For another, the false claim is not just a peripheral detail, but is itself a central tenet of Buddhism. It is because of rebirth that suffering is immeasurable, and that we must escape it by becoming enlightened. If I will not be reborn, I essentially get Nibbana for free. I will not experience any suffering upon death. This is my last birth, the spiritual life has been lived, the burden has been laid down, yada yada yada. The benefits of meditation, for me, are limited to those that appear in this very life. These benefits are seen as greatly inferior to those benefits that appear on a larger scale in the rounds of rebirth, which are themselves greatly inferior to the benefit of escape from the rounds of rebirth. But if I can only get these inferior benefits, is it worth following the teaching at all? If my suffering is actually finite, if there is no threat of hell or infinite future births in the lower realms, what am I running from? Is it a good idea to spend my one life meditating in a cave? Probably not.
The fact that I will live only this one life also poses an issue for the truth of impermanence. There may be states that arise and do not subside from now until the end of life, or that take up a large proportion of life, and in fact it would make sense to attempt to avoid these states if they are painful. So it is not the fact that every state eventually subsides that should turn one to meditation, but rather the fact that meditation can cause any painful state to subside that should do so. But meditation is not the only thing that can cause a given painful state to subside. If one is lonely, meditation can help alleviate that feeling. However, it is difficult to be so good at meditating that one is not bothered whatsoever by the fact that one has no connections with others. So instead of merely meditating, one ought to use meditation in conjunction with a pursuit of the worldly solution to the problem. That is, developing relationships and nurturing those that exist. The fact that we live once turns meditation into a tool that can be used only in this present life, and then it is just one among many such tools.
Even if one believes in rebirth, the claims made, for example, surrounding the birth of the Buddha - the fact that, upon birth, he immediately took seven steps north and spoke a coherent sentence - are frankly silly. I don't think it is a good idea to take the supernatural elements of Buddhism seriously, in view of claims like these. Again, a false claim being made by the Buddha casts doubt upon the whole enterprise.
Bodhi claims that the view that a person lives once and is annihilated upon death "threatens to undermine ethics" and "leads to ethical anarchy". This is very similar to the opinion of Christians who claim that one cannot have morality without God. Both of these claims are false and display an appalling ignorance of philosophy. It is very easy to come up with counters to both of these claims, and so, when an intelligent person makes such claims, I can only conclude that they are wilfully deluded so that they may cling to ideas that they adore. Moreover, whether or not something presents an ethical problem has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it is true. Buddhism, being as old as it is, being a religion, and therefore dogmatic in certain respects, and reluctant to change, is ignorant of other philosophy. I think it has some great wisdom. I think meditation is a useful tool. However, the wisdom of Buddhism should be removed from its religious elements, treated as a philosophy, and taken in conversation with other philosophy. One's worldview ought to be informed by Buddhism, and one would do well to take some its advice seriously, but one should not accept anything on faith, and certainly should not be ignorant of other philosophy.