It's really hard to find books about the history of Buddhism and this might be because it's extremely hard to write about. There are lots of Sanskrit and Pali terms which don't have a direct translation in English and so need to be kept in their original form; there are lots of schools and philosophies that really don't go anywhere; and there is a lot of historical happenstance that doesn't really say much about the nature of Buddhism then or now.

I also think Skilton wanted to avoid the mistake of writing a teleological history, in which all the wrong ideas fell by the wayside and the great and glorious *insert contemporary Buddhist sect* way triumphed. In this he succeeded, but it was at the cost of cohesion. I think it would have been helpful to have a couple of central theses - eg. that non-duality is central to Buddhism, that the role of compassion has been diminished, etc - and then structure the book around determining the truth of those. Even if that approach wasn't taken, something was required to tie the whole thing together.

There are also problems with Skilton's writing, which at the sentence level is usually fairly clear, but which at the paragraph, chapter and book levels leaves a bit to be desired. The most obvious example is that on page 149, in the chapter on Buddhism in Sri Lanka, the book says "The form of Buddhism that Mahinda brought was apparently...." Which would be fine if we'd been talking heaps about Mahinda, but in fact he was only referred to once before in the book, in a single sentence on page 55. This is an awfully long time to expect a reader to keep a peripheral actor in their head, but such missteps are not uncommon. The book asks too much even of a serious reader.

Having said all that, Skilton deserves praise for tackling a subject few others have and he certainly helped elucidate the historical origins of Zen, which is the Buddhist faith that most interests me. This book is a tough read, but would make an excellent reference either for writing an essay or to have around when you need help remembering the details of some long-distant split. ( )

I found this short book to be quite useful in disentangling the various threads of contemporary Buddhism, even though the history stops short of the 20th century. For example, I've always been troubled by the division between the so-called "lesser" and "greater" vehicles (Hinayana and Mahayana). Why would someone claim to follow something lesser? What is made clear here is that, in the most common usage, these terms arise in the Mahayana tradition and a follower of the Hinayana would be more likely to identify as a follower of any number of schools founded before the Perfection of Wisdom sutras (an interesting exception is in Nepal, where the two vehicles are considered stages on the path to enlightenment).

Along with a thorough examination of Buddhism's development in India, the book does a nice job summarizing the characteristics of Buddhism outside of India and why the religion based in South-East Asia has a different flavor than that of Tibet, China, or Japan. My one complaint is that the text could use a glossary, as it tends to be liberally sprinkled with arcane terms that are only defined on their first appearance. ( )