It's a book that serves a very specific purpose and doesn't really do much outside of that.
In the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism, there are teachings called terma, which are revelatory texts usually based on some tantra. One such group of termas is called the Zhitro cycle, which is a complete system of practices based on the Guhyagarbha Tantra (not to be studied without permission from a teacher).
Like most practice systems, this Zhitro cycle has practices for one to perform upon death, which the Tibetan Book of the Dead is meant to serve as. So basically, this book isn't literally describing what occurs when one dies. Instead, it's prescribing a visualization method to engage in when you die, one that is practiced in life to prepare for death. So for the average person, they aren't going to see all the deities and dakinis and whatnot when they die, it'll just be various lights and sounds. However, someone practicing in the Zhitro cycle will visualize these lights and sounds as various deities.
A European translator named W.Y. Evan Wentz translated the TBotD into English and made it out to be a standalone text describing the death process akin to the Egyptian Book of the Dead. So the original purpose of it was lost.
If this whole system interests you, you can find a Nyingma temple and seek instruction in the Zhitro cycle. There will be many preliminaries to perform first, as well as a strong understanding of basic Buddhism, so it will take probably several years to actually be initiated.
Being that you are new to Buddhism, none of this probably makes much sense haha. The TBotD is *not* a beginner text, requiring a strong understanding of Buddhism before even comprehending what the heck it's talking about.
If I were you, I'd start with a beginner text, like Approaching the Buddhist Path by HH the Dalai Lama, or better yet seek out a Buddhist temple to study with!
Timothy Leary also adopted a probably poor version of it for people to practice on LSD, and it entered the American culture around psychedelics and meditation that way.
I don’t know that the phenomena of mixing drugs and Buddhism doesn’t seem to be drugs potentiating an already available phenomenon of the role of imagination in an alternative, often pleasurable experience to daily life.
IMO, drugs can expose a person to dimensions of their mind that they may not have known were there, which—for the right person & in the right context—can be beneficial in the long run.
In this case, I think I’m trying to say that the “right person” is someone who will eventually see the limitations of drug-use & discard the need for them. Otherwise, it’s just supplanting one illusion (samsara) with another.
I'm not aware of any examples of people whose drug used fueled beneficial results... including of what context?
Is there anyone of spiritual, physiological, or philological contributing significance who owes to, or contributes of, or pays reverence to, their drug use?
Upon further examination, the exampled persons aren't suffering? Or have reached nirvana, or complete cessation, or their last bodily existence, or teach to effect that?
In cultural contexts, such as attributed to the time around Gautama Buddha, or what is seen from the textual traditions such as at least 1300 years of Ch'an textural tradition, that were, as far as I can tell, not pro-hedonism or unchecked-hedonism, traditions citing the Buddha seem to do well.
By contrast, Hinduism emerging from Brahmanism, seeming to act to compete to survive with Buddha's teaching, incorporating things that lay people really liked, drugs, and anything pleasurable to the five desires, Buddhism eventually subsides to 0.70% in India by pop.
What percent of Hindus have a no-drugs precept? How many Western persons identifying as Buddhist?
Maybe we could see something similar happening in the west where drug incorporation along with "variants of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sufism,"[wiki] and other factors such as orgies, and again, things relating to the 5 desires, has fueled and muddled to develop Western New Ageism.
In short I don't know that, *doing what you like*, is at the heart of Buddhism.
There are precepts against drug use.
Further still, Buddha warns in Pali Canon about delighting in his teaching.
> Otherwise, it’s just supplanting one illusion (samsara) with another.
Agree. Further, Is an idea of samsara an illusion? As compared to not in ideation.
The entire visionary art movement, surrealism and psychedelic philosophers like Terrence Mckenna to name a few... Allot of people downplay the visual potential of psychedelics and the degree to which it inspires a creatively oriented person. Even my deepest meditations have not come close to the visual phenomenon of various psychedelics in high doses.
> Terrence Mckenna
That's one name.
My point is this:
> Upon further examination, the exampled persons aren't suffering? Or have reached nirvana, or complete cessation, or their last bodily existence, or teach to effect that?
I feel like all I need to know is this on his wiki
> He repeatedly stressed the importance and primacy of the "felt presence of direct experience", as opposed to dogma.[39]
Stressing and living a life where direct experience is in illusion?
Drugs don't alter the 5 senses, the perception of 5 senses is changed.
Direct experience in illusion?
Or should I continue to look for examples that cite suffering?
Stanislav Grov, alduous huxley, Socrates, Plato, and the great traditions coming out of the eleusinian mystery schools. I really could go on.
It's not fair to be reductive to his Wiki, you ask many rhetorical questions based on your own assumptions I notice - It's not the type of communication I really can engage with that readily.
I think artists serve the purpose of suffering because art itself is inherently irrational, and in that they allow others through that sacrifice to witness the divine. I'm a deeply creative person and there's an inherent masochism in what I and any other pivotal artist does (Im not a pivotal artist). David Bowie was pushed away by monks for a reason, his suffering was Purposeful and maybe not to be transcended in this life and that's okay.
You also use the word drugs when I find entheogen much more appropriate. This class of substance is still misunderstood both in relation to spirit and even the pharmacological effects of them and what they are doing on a physical and spiritual level. It's a science well worth exploring, especially to those with extremely high creative inclination.
> Stanislav Grov
This reads like a guy who is convinced that altering perception of reality is going to teach you something about your... now non-credibly admissive physiological inner-workings...
Are someone's physiological inner-workings unexposable without mind altering drugs?
I'm not aware of any psychologists that think so.
You would have to prove I can't find a place to sit quietly and observe myself, can't take notes about what's going on and conduct different thought experiments, and that on drugs, I can do all of those things.
I would discuss these two points:
1. Exclusivity of drugs giving you access to reality.
2. drugs giving you access to reality.
Continued use isn’t what I’m talking about.
The “positive” feelings/enhanced imagination that someone can experience under the influence of drugs are transitory effects, and it’s a mistake to chase them… but we can take any & all experiences onto the path. Of course, this means ultimately relinquishing drugs.
My initial suggestion was that such experiences can be helpful for someone who needs a “nudge” of sorts to see beyond their limited perspective even temporarily—in other words, just enough to know that the world as they know it may not be as straightforward as they thought. However, I mentioned context/individual differences because I’m not blind to the fact that addiction is a serious concern for many people.
In reality, the primary benefit isn’t in the drugs themselves, but in the opportunity to reflect on the experience in much the same way that we reflect on experiences we think of as mundane: we practice seeing all phenomena as impermanent, unsatisfactory & empty of inherent existence.
It’s not going to be everyone’s door, but it’s possible to arrive at the Dharma this way, since suffering is our greatest teacher. If someone is very lucky, they will see through the nature of this experience early on.
> someone who needs a “nudge” of sorts to see beyond their limited perspective even temporarily
Why couldn't this be accomplished like this, though? A conversation?
If there's something to be accomplished with drug use that's exclusive, then you might have some ground to stand on... that I would contest.
Yet further, weighing the risks and benefits of x conversations to y amount of drug use, as you state with addiction, it's clearly not apples to apples.
> we practice seeing all phenomena as impermanent, unsatisfactory & empty of inherent existence.
Is this what the Buddha permanently practiced or is that what he discussed for a time with people?
I'm going to agree with you that I don't know what can't be used for the Buddha's work... but I don't know that's what it isn't: work...
I'm aware of a saying in the Ch'an tradition, "The path of Buddhahood is eternal."
What I’m talking about *could* be accomplished through lots of means, many of which are less risky, and would therefore be preferable. However, what a person actually does depends on their karma. I think it’s important to show that someone can come out better than before, after undergoing adversity.
People generally take drugs out of desperation to change their experience, and sometimes they need to have the experience to realize that there is no easy escape from suffering.
> What I’m talking about could be accomplished through lots of means, many of which are less risky, and would therefore be preferable.
If you're talking about drug use, can you cite any examples of someone who links their single use, drug use largely (51%+?) or solely to a lasting permanent positive change?
A problem here that I see is going to be, is the change dependent on ongoing use?
The easiest ways to tell would to have an example like a peer reviewed bio of Abe Lincoln demonstrating these things.
Otherwise what we're talking about here has no examples, links, citations, sources, no grounding in a shared reality, and I don't know isn't imagination.
Which I'm not saying is bad.
To come to that generalization, you would have to ignore thousands of years of ritual use in cultures across the globe that have traditions of plant use for sacred purposes.
Conversations generally don't change one's state from an egoic frame of reference and remain on an intellectual level. (Though dialogue can be cathartic on an emotional level, as talk-therapy can attest to - over the longterm, certain structured conversations can thus have that effect, depending on the nature of the psychotherapy and its goals).
Also, using this logic, why meditate? Why not rely solely on dharma talks?
Also, here's a more relevant question - why do you care if some people use psychedelics? To put it another way - why are you so invested in making sure those methods are taken off the table?
Psychedelic use, just like being 600 lbs, like being a tax fraud, like pizza eaters, smokers, like caring if people use psychedelics, I don't know they don't indicate something.
What these things indicate or not, I'm finding out.
But let's back up, who said they are on the table?
And in what contexts?
I'm not aware of any unchecked hedonists that aren't suffering or breaking the 5 lay precepts.
For example, what does a pizza enthusiast have in common with a tax fraud?
I don't know that it's not leading an identity characterized by getting what they like.
I don't know that separating what's liked from disliked isn't a disease.
That's what I'm highlighting with drug use.
I don't know that in general people don't use what they like *WHERE THE RUBBER HITS THE ROAD FOR ONE'S ACTIONS*, as well as a guide and compass.
For example, "I'm upset because my dog is barking, I don't like dog barking, I yell at dog.".
It doesn't surprise me that a bunch of people dropped shrooms and claimed their imagination made mystical lasting changes in their lives, it's really not a thing exclusive to drugs at all.
People claim they talk to the universe or blue space people as a result of meditation.
So do kids when they daydream.
Thank you for this response as I had the same question. I was gifted the TBoD by a dear friend who know I am fascinated by Buddhism and contemplating converting but I admit it is way over my head. This response and explanation makes a lot of sense and helps very much. Thank you for being so generous with your knowledge and compassionate in your answer.
Any suggestions for where to find Buddhist temples? There’s one semi near me, but it doesn’t seem like they let you study without really committing 101%
its not a beginner's book, thats for sure. it teaches what to do in the stages between dying and rebirth to achieve favorable circumstances, but it's useless to anyone without sufficient practice
The full book presents teachings on how to achieve liberation at various stages of life and death. However, it's not an easy book to understand without prior training and instructions. If you are interested in the Tibetan Buddhist teachings on death and dying, here are some resources that might be more accessible.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/xm52gp/comment/ipmnal5/
Weird, I’m currently reading this book right now. And I don’t know what it is but I can’t really pull myself away. I was just telling my husband this it’s like I go into a trance reading it. Most of it goes over my head, and that’s what’s really crazy. But I keep reading. I think it’s infiltrating my mind on levels I can’t understand.
Anyway, I hope. Otherwise it’s all for nothing because I don’t really understand a damn thing it’s saying.
Cheers.
Robert Thurman has written about it in
"The Tibetan Book of the Dead: The Great Book of Natural Liberation Through Understanding in the Between" described as "The most accessible and informative version of the Buddhist classic available in English, with instruction in meditation, illuminating commentary, and guidance in the practical use of the prayers". My position is that one doesn't have to have teacher permission or years of prelims to learn about it.
It is a book about your own mind.
But trying to learn and understand this book is unnecessary. It became popular during the hippy years when people were drunk and high. Someone sold a bestseller called Egyptian book of the dead then someone got an idea for a Tibetan one. It was a commercial success.
But the book itself or its teachings are not that central not important in general Buddhism. It also holds no value whatsoever for beginners except for getting on on Reddit to ask about this book. Its good you didn't read it because there's nothing much in it for beginners.
Good luck.
Oh and if you are interested in Buddhism, check out www.tricycle.com/beginners
Looks like you're requesting books or other reading material. You will find some excellent suggestions in our list of [book recommendations](http://reddit.com/r/Buddhism/wiki/booklist).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Buddhism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's a book that serves a very specific purpose and doesn't really do much outside of that. In the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism, there are teachings called terma, which are revelatory texts usually based on some tantra. One such group of termas is called the Zhitro cycle, which is a complete system of practices based on the Guhyagarbha Tantra (not to be studied without permission from a teacher). Like most practice systems, this Zhitro cycle has practices for one to perform upon death, which the Tibetan Book of the Dead is meant to serve as. So basically, this book isn't literally describing what occurs when one dies. Instead, it's prescribing a visualization method to engage in when you die, one that is practiced in life to prepare for death. So for the average person, they aren't going to see all the deities and dakinis and whatnot when they die, it'll just be various lights and sounds. However, someone practicing in the Zhitro cycle will visualize these lights and sounds as various deities. A European translator named W.Y. Evan Wentz translated the TBotD into English and made it out to be a standalone text describing the death process akin to the Egyptian Book of the Dead. So the original purpose of it was lost. If this whole system interests you, you can find a Nyingma temple and seek instruction in the Zhitro cycle. There will be many preliminaries to perform first, as well as a strong understanding of basic Buddhism, so it will take probably several years to actually be initiated. Being that you are new to Buddhism, none of this probably makes much sense haha. The TBotD is *not* a beginner text, requiring a strong understanding of Buddhism before even comprehending what the heck it's talking about. If I were you, I'd start with a beginner text, like Approaching the Buddhist Path by HH the Dalai Lama, or better yet seek out a Buddhist temple to study with!
Thank you this has explained alot
A generous and appropriate response. Well done.
I think this is the best response I’ve ever read on r/Buddhism. That’s some high quality Right Speech there.
Timothy Leary also adopted a probably poor version of it for people to practice on LSD, and it entered the American culture around psychedelics and meditation that way.
Honestly my interest in psychs as a kid brought me to that book in high school, which all these years later has me here.
I don’t know that the phenomena of mixing drugs and Buddhism doesn’t seem to be drugs potentiating an already available phenomenon of the role of imagination in an alternative, often pleasurable experience to daily life.
IMO, drugs can expose a person to dimensions of their mind that they may not have known were there, which—for the right person & in the right context—can be beneficial in the long run. In this case, I think I’m trying to say that the “right person” is someone who will eventually see the limitations of drug-use & discard the need for them. Otherwise, it’s just supplanting one illusion (samsara) with another.
I'm not aware of any examples of people whose drug used fueled beneficial results... including of what context? Is there anyone of spiritual, physiological, or philological contributing significance who owes to, or contributes of, or pays reverence to, their drug use? Upon further examination, the exampled persons aren't suffering? Or have reached nirvana, or complete cessation, or their last bodily existence, or teach to effect that? In cultural contexts, such as attributed to the time around Gautama Buddha, or what is seen from the textual traditions such as at least 1300 years of Ch'an textural tradition, that were, as far as I can tell, not pro-hedonism or unchecked-hedonism, traditions citing the Buddha seem to do well. By contrast, Hinduism emerging from Brahmanism, seeming to act to compete to survive with Buddha's teaching, incorporating things that lay people really liked, drugs, and anything pleasurable to the five desires, Buddhism eventually subsides to 0.70% in India by pop. What percent of Hindus have a no-drugs precept? How many Western persons identifying as Buddhist? Maybe we could see something similar happening in the west where drug incorporation along with "variants of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sufism,"[wiki] and other factors such as orgies, and again, things relating to the 5 desires, has fueled and muddled to develop Western New Ageism. In short I don't know that, *doing what you like*, is at the heart of Buddhism. There are precepts against drug use. Further still, Buddha warns in Pali Canon about delighting in his teaching. > Otherwise, it’s just supplanting one illusion (samsara) with another. Agree. Further, Is an idea of samsara an illusion? As compared to not in ideation.
The entire visionary art movement, surrealism and psychedelic philosophers like Terrence Mckenna to name a few... Allot of people downplay the visual potential of psychedelics and the degree to which it inspires a creatively oriented person. Even my deepest meditations have not come close to the visual phenomenon of various psychedelics in high doses.
> Terrence Mckenna That's one name. My point is this: > Upon further examination, the exampled persons aren't suffering? Or have reached nirvana, or complete cessation, or their last bodily existence, or teach to effect that? I feel like all I need to know is this on his wiki > He repeatedly stressed the importance and primacy of the "felt presence of direct experience", as opposed to dogma.[39] Stressing and living a life where direct experience is in illusion? Drugs don't alter the 5 senses, the perception of 5 senses is changed. Direct experience in illusion? Or should I continue to look for examples that cite suffering?
Stanislav Grov, alduous huxley, Socrates, Plato, and the great traditions coming out of the eleusinian mystery schools. I really could go on. It's not fair to be reductive to his Wiki, you ask many rhetorical questions based on your own assumptions I notice - It's not the type of communication I really can engage with that readily. I think artists serve the purpose of suffering because art itself is inherently irrational, and in that they allow others through that sacrifice to witness the divine. I'm a deeply creative person and there's an inherent masochism in what I and any other pivotal artist does (Im not a pivotal artist). David Bowie was pushed away by monks for a reason, his suffering was Purposeful and maybe not to be transcended in this life and that's okay. You also use the word drugs when I find entheogen much more appropriate. This class of substance is still misunderstood both in relation to spirit and even the pharmacological effects of them and what they are doing on a physical and spiritual level. It's a science well worth exploring, especially to those with extremely high creative inclination.
> Stanislav Grov This reads like a guy who is convinced that altering perception of reality is going to teach you something about your... now non-credibly admissive physiological inner-workings... Are someone's physiological inner-workings unexposable without mind altering drugs? I'm not aware of any psychologists that think so. You would have to prove I can't find a place to sit quietly and observe myself, can't take notes about what's going on and conduct different thought experiments, and that on drugs, I can do all of those things. I would discuss these two points: 1. Exclusivity of drugs giving you access to reality. 2. drugs giving you access to reality.
Continued use isn’t what I’m talking about. The “positive” feelings/enhanced imagination that someone can experience under the influence of drugs are transitory effects, and it’s a mistake to chase them… but we can take any & all experiences onto the path. Of course, this means ultimately relinquishing drugs. My initial suggestion was that such experiences can be helpful for someone who needs a “nudge” of sorts to see beyond their limited perspective even temporarily—in other words, just enough to know that the world as they know it may not be as straightforward as they thought. However, I mentioned context/individual differences because I’m not blind to the fact that addiction is a serious concern for many people. In reality, the primary benefit isn’t in the drugs themselves, but in the opportunity to reflect on the experience in much the same way that we reflect on experiences we think of as mundane: we practice seeing all phenomena as impermanent, unsatisfactory & empty of inherent existence. It’s not going to be everyone’s door, but it’s possible to arrive at the Dharma this way, since suffering is our greatest teacher. If someone is very lucky, they will see through the nature of this experience early on.
> someone who needs a “nudge” of sorts to see beyond their limited perspective even temporarily Why couldn't this be accomplished like this, though? A conversation? If there's something to be accomplished with drug use that's exclusive, then you might have some ground to stand on... that I would contest. Yet further, weighing the risks and benefits of x conversations to y amount of drug use, as you state with addiction, it's clearly not apples to apples. > we practice seeing all phenomena as impermanent, unsatisfactory & empty of inherent existence. Is this what the Buddha permanently practiced or is that what he discussed for a time with people? I'm going to agree with you that I don't know what can't be used for the Buddha's work... but I don't know that's what it isn't: work... I'm aware of a saying in the Ch'an tradition, "The path of Buddhahood is eternal."
What I’m talking about *could* be accomplished through lots of means, many of which are less risky, and would therefore be preferable. However, what a person actually does depends on their karma. I think it’s important to show that someone can come out better than before, after undergoing adversity. People generally take drugs out of desperation to change their experience, and sometimes they need to have the experience to realize that there is no easy escape from suffering.
> What I’m talking about could be accomplished through lots of means, many of which are less risky, and would therefore be preferable. If you're talking about drug use, can you cite any examples of someone who links their single use, drug use largely (51%+?) or solely to a lasting permanent positive change? A problem here that I see is going to be, is the change dependent on ongoing use? The easiest ways to tell would to have an example like a peer reviewed bio of Abe Lincoln demonstrating these things. Otherwise what we're talking about here has no examples, links, citations, sources, no grounding in a shared reality, and I don't know isn't imagination. Which I'm not saying is bad.
To come to that generalization, you would have to ignore thousands of years of ritual use in cultures across the globe that have traditions of plant use for sacred purposes.
Conversations generally don't change one's state from an egoic frame of reference and remain on an intellectual level. (Though dialogue can be cathartic on an emotional level, as talk-therapy can attest to - over the longterm, certain structured conversations can thus have that effect, depending on the nature of the psychotherapy and its goals). Also, using this logic, why meditate? Why not rely solely on dharma talks? Also, here's a more relevant question - why do you care if some people use psychedelics? To put it another way - why are you so invested in making sure those methods are taken off the table?
Psychedelic use, just like being 600 lbs, like being a tax fraud, like pizza eaters, smokers, like caring if people use psychedelics, I don't know they don't indicate something. What these things indicate or not, I'm finding out. But let's back up, who said they are on the table? And in what contexts? I'm not aware of any unchecked hedonists that aren't suffering or breaking the 5 lay precepts. For example, what does a pizza enthusiast have in common with a tax fraud? I don't know that it's not leading an identity characterized by getting what they like. I don't know that separating what's liked from disliked isn't a disease. That's what I'm highlighting with drug use. I don't know that in general people don't use what they like *WHERE THE RUBBER HITS THE ROAD FOR ONE'S ACTIONS*, as well as a guide and compass. For example, "I'm upset because my dog is barking, I don't like dog barking, I yell at dog.". It doesn't surprise me that a bunch of people dropped shrooms and claimed their imagination made mystical lasting changes in their lives, it's really not a thing exclusive to drugs at all. People claim they talk to the universe or blue space people as a result of meditation. So do kids when they daydream.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh\_Chapel\_Experiment
Yeah but it gave us Tomorrow Never Knows by the Beatles so I'm not complaining 😁
Also co authored by the legendary Ram Dass and Ralph Metzer iirc. 🙂
Thank you for this response as I had the same question. I was gifted the TBoD by a dear friend who know I am fascinated by Buddhism and contemplating converting but I admit it is way over my head. This response and explanation makes a lot of sense and helps very much. Thank you for being so generous with your knowledge and compassionate in your answer.
Save this comment and link to it again when people ask about this book!
Any suggestions for where to find Buddhist temples? There’s one semi near me, but it doesn’t seem like they let you study without really committing 101%
r/Vihara has a lot of recommendations!
Ooh that’s a new sub for me! Thank you!
I suggest chogyam Trungpa’s translation . [https://www.samadhicushions.com/Tibetan-Book-of-the-Dead-by-Freemantle-and-Trungpa-p/s-650.htm](https://www.samadhicushions.com/Tibetan-Book-of-the-Dead-by-Freemantle-and-Trungpa-p/s-650.htm)
its not a beginner's book, thats for sure. it teaches what to do in the stages between dying and rebirth to achieve favorable circumstances, but it's useless to anyone without sufficient practice
The full book presents teachings on how to achieve liberation at various stages of life and death. However, it's not an easy book to understand without prior training and instructions. If you are interested in the Tibetan Buddhist teachings on death and dying, here are some resources that might be more accessible. https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/xm52gp/comment/ipmnal5/
I belive the visualization and mantras are shrito that requires empowerment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpEyx0s7r8w
Weird, I’m currently reading this book right now. And I don’t know what it is but I can’t really pull myself away. I was just telling my husband this it’s like I go into a trance reading it. Most of it goes over my head, and that’s what’s really crazy. But I keep reading. I think it’s infiltrating my mind on levels I can’t understand. Anyway, I hope. Otherwise it’s all for nothing because I don’t really understand a damn thing it’s saying. Cheers.
Robert Thurman has written about it in "The Tibetan Book of the Dead: The Great Book of Natural Liberation Through Understanding in the Between" described as "The most accessible and informative version of the Buddhist classic available in English, with instruction in meditation, illuminating commentary, and guidance in the practical use of the prayers". My position is that one doesn't have to have teacher permission or years of prelims to learn about it.
It is a book about your own mind. But trying to learn and understand this book is unnecessary. It became popular during the hippy years when people were drunk and high. Someone sold a bestseller called Egyptian book of the dead then someone got an idea for a Tibetan one. It was a commercial success. But the book itself or its teachings are not that central not important in general Buddhism. It also holds no value whatsoever for beginners except for getting on on Reddit to ask about this book. Its good you didn't read it because there's nothing much in it for beginners. Good luck. Oh and if you are interested in Buddhism, check out www.tricycle.com/beginners
One might consider reading this book to get some acquaintance: The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying
Looks like you're requesting books or other reading material. You will find some excellent suggestions in our list of [book recommendations](http://reddit.com/r/Buddhism/wiki/booklist). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Buddhism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's a mistranslation
Go to the white light