Evan Thompson, a philosopher of cognitive science and phenomenology, and a key facilitator of dialogues between Buddhists and scientists, has recently published a book called Why I am not a Buddhist. The book’s title is a bit misleading in that Thompson is not claiming that Buddhism has a fundamentally mistaken view of the world or that Buddhism plays a pernicious role in contemporary society.
Actually, the opposite is the case. Thompson sees himself as a friend of Buddhism and argues that certain Buddhist insights about human experience are exceptionally valuable, including its ‘radical critique of our narcissistic preoccupation with the self’ (p. 189). He contends that the Buddhist philosophical tradition has rich insights which can contribute to the development of a cosmopolitan philosophy which facilitates diversity, cooperation, and well-being.
The problems with Buddhist modernism and Buddhist exceptionalism
The target of Thompson’s critique is instead a form of Buddhism which has become predominant in the west today: Buddhist modernism. In his view, Buddhist modernism claims to retain Buddhism’s original and essential core through its emphasis on personal meditative experience and scientific rationality while jettisoning the metaphysical and ritual aspects of traditional lineages of Buddhism.
An inherent part of Buddhist modernism is what Thompson calls Buddhist exceptionalism. This is the notion that Buddhism is superior to all other spiritual traditions and religions because it provides us with a scientific understanding of how the mind functions and thus enables us to experience the world as it really is. Unlike other religions, Buddhism is essentially a mind science whose insights are totally consistent with current developments in neuroscience, cognitive psychology, etc.
Thompson rejects the claims of Buddhist modernism and Buddhist exceptionalism on several grounds.
First, he argues that all versions of Buddhist modernism are inescapably religious, if we understand religion in the broadest sense. Like all other religions, Buddhist modernism includes a community of believers who hold certain matters as sacred and believe that there is a transcendental source of meaning to our experiences and the world. Further, Buddhist modernists think that certain meditative practices and insights can lead to the relief of suffering and, possibly, complete liberation from suffering.
In short, Buddhist modernism is not simply a science of mind but a religion with a specific understanding about how to find meaning and a soteriological theory.
Second, Thompson offers trenchant philosophical critiques of key elements of Buddhism modernism. Because he believes that ‘….Buddhist modernism is philosophically unsound, I see no way for myself to be a Buddhist without acting in bad faith’ (p. 19).
The bulk of the book is his critical analysis of the key elements of Buddhist modernism, including:
- the identification of Buddhism with science
- the notion of ‘not-self’ premised on the view that the self is a brain-generated illusion (what Thompson calls ‘neural’ Buddhism)
- the belief that mindfulness provides us with an unmediated experience of reality, and
- the concept of enlightenment or nirvana
Thompson argues that these key elements are problematic either because the claims in support of these elements are mistaken or that there is a vibrant debate among Buddhists on these issues for which no particular perspective can be assessed as the ‘truth.’
Not-self or a different notion of the self
Thompson makes many valuable points, but I particularly found useful his examination of the notion of the self. Thompson points out that Buddhist modernists assume a dichotomy between a self which is unconstructed or independent and a self which is simply an illusion, generated by habitual processes in our brains (the ‘right’ view). Using the techniques of neuroscience, we can actually observe the neural correlates of this process of creating a false illusion of the self.
In fact, such a dichotomy is mistaken. Thompson discusses how in philosophy and science an alternative notion of the self has been developed, one in which the self is understood as a ‘….developmental and social construction and as not existing apart from experience’ (p. 108). From this phenomenological perspective, the self is a ‘multifaceted construction, made out of different kinds of self-awareness….To say that the sense of self is a construction….doesn’t logically imply that there is no self or that the sense of self is the presentation of an illusion’ (p. 113).
Further, Thompson contends that the Buddhist modernist notion of ‘not-self’ is a normative and soteriological claim, not a scientific truth of psychology. Buddhists hold as an important ethical value the need to abandon the sense of being an independent self and view such an understanding or insight as the basis for liberation from mental suffering. In this sense, not-self is a fundamentally religious conception.
The value of cosmopolitanism
The purpose of Thompson’s critique of Buddhist modernism is not to reject Buddhism as a whole, but to identify the ways in which Buddhist perspectives can play an important role in an ongoing dialogue among all human beings about the values, facts, and theories which are essential for human flourishing. Rather than being the sole and ultimate truth, Buddhism should be seen as one of many perspectives and practices which need to be part of a conversation among diverse peoples. This conversation is one of the essential ingredients of cosmopolitanism, a philosophical perspective and ethical stance.
Thompson advocates a version of cosmopolitanism developed by Kwame Anthony Appiah in his book, Cosmopolitanism: ethics in a world of strangers. Appiah’s cosmopolitanism is based on two principles: ‘….we have an obligation to all human beings….[and] each of can and should value particular human lives….’ (p. 175). The bottom line: we should welcome and respect differences among people while we offer compassion and care to all human beings.
It’s not hard to see how the centrality of compassion, non-harm, and mindfulness in Buddhism is consistent with such an approach. What Buddhism brings to the conversation is a radical critique of how we normally view our selves and our place in the world, and how we can move away from this common self-conception.
Is secular Buddhism just another form of Buddhist modernism?
A final note. Thompson does not discuss secular Buddhism except to offer, in a footnote, a criticism of Stephen Batchelor’s efforts to reconstruct the historical Buddha’s core insights through an interpretation of texts in the Pali Canon. Does his critique of Buddhist modernism apply to secular Buddhism?
Well, that depends on the type of secular Buddhism one espouses and practices. Although secular Buddhism, or a secular approach to the dharma, is a very recent phenomenon, there is a wide range of perspectives among secular Buddhists.
Certainly, there are secular Buddhists who see their practice as closely connected to certain forms of Buddhist modernism, including Insight meditation, or to the secular mindfulness movement. Those secular Buddhists thus accept some of the Buddhist modernist notions that Thompson is critiquing.
However, Stephen Batchelor, Winton Higgins, and others (including myself) have been advocating a secular approach to the dharma which is not just the most recent version of Buddhist modernism. This type of secular Buddhism goes beyond and critiques Buddhist modernism in the following ways:
- We don’t see secular Buddhism as anti-religious and recognize that a secular approach to the dharma includes a deep concern over values and ultimate concerns.
- We emphasize the ways in which the ethical and pragmatic insights of the historical Buddha are guides to living a life that facilitates human flourishing. They are not metaphysical or scientific truths about the world.
- Rather than engaging in a sterile debate about self vs. not-self, we focus on understanding the self as an embodied, social experience.
- We are skeptical of efforts to use neuroscience to ‘prove’ the truth of Buddhism.
- We don’t see the goal of a secular approach as achieving nirvana, understood as the unconditioned and a state of absolute non-suffering.
- We prioritize the creation of democratic sanghas, recognizing that the path to human flourishing requires us to walk on the Eightfold Path at the interpersonal, community, and society-wide levels.
- Finally, we understand that Buddhism is just one of several perspectives which are crucial to promoting human flourishing. Consistent with the cosmopolitanism advocated by Thompson, Stephen Batchelor has asserted that ‘A practitioner of the dharma aspires to nurture a culture of awakening that finds its inspiration in Buddhist and non-Buddhist, religious and secular sources alike’ (Stephen Batchelor, After Buddhism, p. 321).
In all these ways, the secular Buddhism being developed by Stephen Batchelor and others has moved beyond the premises of Buddhist modernism and constitutes a qualitatively different approach, what Stephen has called Buddhism 2.0. This new ‘operating system’ of Buddhism has the potential to play a key role in the conversation, dialogues, and collective practices that we need to foster human flourishing in a world united by a cosmopolitan philosophy and ethics.
7 Replies to “A review of Evan Thompson’s ‘Why I am not a Buddhist’”
A very good review that has increased my understanding of Evan Thompson’s book. Thank you. 🙂
Author seems to have approached Buddhist principles the right way.
The approach of religions and science towards God in His given meaning deserves a drastic change, and if possible, a thorough scientific enquiry, as explained in the following work:http://thewhyquestionofexistenceanswered.blogspot.com/2019/08/has-life-any-meaning-and-sense-why-life.html?m=1
I read the book, and Evan Thompson seems to have an intellectual-only understanding of Buddhism. Buddhist teachings mention three levels of wisdom – first there is intellectual understanding, then contemplating based on this understanding, and then most importantly experientially understanding of the teachings within meditation. In other words, ultimate reality concepts like ‘no self’ and enlightenment needs to be understood gradually and EXPERIENTIALLY, rather than being dismissed through intellectual arguments.
We also need to remember that the Buddha did not deny the self when considering ‘conventional reality’ – he even referred to himself as a person. When considering ultimate reality, however he described the moment-to-moment manifestations that are constantly changing where an unchanging “I” cannot be found in any of these manifestations.
He also mentions a statement by Ven Nyanaponika and asks “How can bare attention reveal the mind if it also changes it?”- here, an ‘experiential understanding’ is needed to answer this: when one is attentive, one may notice that an emotion such as anxiety has arisen – this observation (as well as any resulting insight into its changing nature) has the capacity to subside the anxiety (change the anxiety). All this ‘reveals’ the mind – promoting wisdom and understanding.
Additionally ‘faith’ in Buddhism is not blind faith– it can be compared to the ‘faith’ needed to take a course in a subject like astronomy. In Buddhism, as one sharpens one’s mindfulness (ability), the more one will understand and one’s faith increases.
I could write more, but I think this is a very misleading book, especially considering that he seems to only have an intellectual understanding of Buddhism.
Well said. Excellent points about the limitations of a purely intellectual understanding. Your point about ‘faith’ in Buddhism, which is not ‘blind faith’, is an important one.
Clearly this book has some useful insights, and could give rise to some valuable self-awareness for many a modern Buddhist, especially regarding the hubristic idea that Buddhism has been more or less proved by science. However some aspects of Thompson’s approach are I think trying to overturn key aspects of Buddhism in order to fit in with secular views. I don’t see that as going anywhere in the long term. Specifically while it is certainly relevant to point out that a bit of mindfulness on its own will not lead to unmediated experience of reality Thompson goes too far here. The whole point of Buddhism is, in the end, to have an unmediated experience of the truth – having discarded all views as the suttas say. That is what Enlightenment is from one point of view, as well as being of course a final, unconditional end of suffering – which Evans also won’t accept. Of course he is free to reject what he sees as unhelpful and antiquated, but my argument would be that this is such a radical departure from the last 2000 years of tradition that in effect he is starting a new system altogether. Just another path of self development with bits and pieces of Buddhism, self-help psychology etc…
Secondly a word to the reviewer and to the secular Buddhist network. I find your point about not being anti-religious, while no doubt sincerely meant, seems to have peculiar not to say disingenuous implications. The revealed religions that predominate in the West still believe that their sacred book is direct revelation from god of ultimate and overriding significance for mankind . The vast majority of liberal Christians believe that the Bible is the ultimate book for mankind even if they don’t take it literally. Muslims even more so with the Quran. And I think most Hindus believe that the Vedas are the one true text for human society if you poke about a bit… And these revealed sacred texts of course concern a creator God or gods.. So these key and core values of many ‘revealed’ religions of the world are something that secular Buddhists surely can simply not agree with. Wouldn’t it be better to say that rather than trying to sound nice…!
Thank you, Ratnagarbha, for your comment. Just a brief note regarding your second point. When Stephen Batchelor and other secular Buddhists, myself included, assert that we’re not anti-religious, it’s not because we’re hiding our true feelings and beliefs. Certainly, those who have a secular approach to the dharma are skeptical about beliefs in deities, transcendent processes, etc. and we are critical of the fundamentalism of most organized religions. When we say that we are not anti-religious, we are distinguishing ourselves from some secularists who advocate a militant atheism which denigrates all aspects of religion. Our purpose is not to oppose religion, but to develop an ethical, wise approach to human flourishing. Whether God exists is not the key question; many of us believe that this is an unknowable matter and take an agnostic position on it. And finally, to the extent that one aspect of most religions is to grapple with matters of ultimate concern (e.g. How should I live my life? What gives life meaning? ), a secular approach to the dharma has in common with most religions that same concern.
This somewhat spectacularly entitled book is fundamentally an attack on Buddhist modernism. There are elements of his attack that I agree with, particularly the overreliance on science as a crutch for explaining Buddhism. A philosophy which has prospered under its own steam for some thousand years does not need to and should not look to quantum physics, of all fields, as support for its beliefs.
He defines the core tenets of Buddhist modernism as “that Buddhism is a “mind science”; that there is no self; that mindfulness is an inward awareness of one’s own private mental theater; that neuroscience establishes the value of mindfulness practice; that enlightenment is a nonconceptual experience outside language, culture, and tradition; and that enlightenment is or can be correlated with a brain state.” In this definition, I think he is creating a version of Buddhist modernism that he can more easily refute. From my own readings of texts by the Dalaï Lama, Mingyur Rinpoche, Sharon Salzburg and Tsongkapa, I would have said that the core tenets of Buddhist modernism are the Four Noble Truths, the Brahma Viharas, the Eightfold Noble Path, the Causes of Suffering and the philosophy of emptiness/no-self. The only elements of this that he really addresses are meditation and no-self. His main point on meditation seems to be that the results are overhyped and can’t be precisely mapped to brain activity, but I don’t believe his position is that there is fundamentally no benefit to it. I think he is probably right that the studies into the benefits of meditation have been overhyped and oversold, but this is not to say that the benefit of meditation is not proven. The question is how and to what degree.
His position on no self is more nuanced, but my reading of it is that he doesn’t disagree with the statement that there is no inherent self. He simply puts forward a proposition that a differently defined notion of self may exist. For me this is uncompelling and not inconsistent with a conventionally existing self (or person), which Buddhist modernists agree with.
One of his big attacks on Buddhist modernism is what he calls Buddhist exceptionalism. Here I think he falls into the classical liberal trap, which starts as “why can’t we all just get along?” And extends into “everybody is right” thinking. Since the Buddhist modernism he attacks is fundamentally a western construct, we have to look at Buddhist exceptionalism in the context of western religions and if we compare Buddhism to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, we see that Buddhism genuinely is exceptional. It has no Creator God. This is exceptional. Judeo-Christian religions rely on the concept of original sin and salvation through supplication while Buddhism relies on an inherent Buddha nature and progress through self reflection. This is exceptional. Buddhism has a rich tradition of debate and movement and is not constrained and fossilised by a fixed religious text. This is exceptional. If the texts I’ve read are to be believed Buddhism has always encouraged followers to judge for themselves and has encouraged debate of its principles beliefs and precepts. This is exceptional. Note that Evan does question this last point, noting that it is difficult for all but the most highly regarded llamas to question or move Buddhism. I don’t see this as compelling because the same could be said of science. There is plenty of literature talking about paradigm shifts in science and how difficult it is to be heard and to challenge existing paradigms. Why should Buddhism be any different?
He appears to dislike the fact that Buddhist modernism “downplays the metaphysical and ritual elements of traditional Asian Buddhism,” while enphasising the “personal meditative experience and scientific rationality.” I don’t have a problem with it doing that and, since he later espouses the benefits of cosmopolitanism where presumably, he is taking the bits of lots of religions that appeal to him, I’m not sure he should object to it either.
There is a theme running through the discussion that aspects of Buddhism are normative and soteriological. When he says this, it’s to dismiss Buddhist thinking as unscientific and, at best, philosophical: certainly religious. For example: “The assertion that the illusion of an unconstructed personal “I” is the cause of mental suffering may look like a straightforward empirical claim about our mental lives. But it’s really a normative claim and a soteriological claim. It’s normative because it tells us that we ought to strive to abandon any feeling of [self]. It’s soteriological because it tells us that following this instruction will liberate us from mental suffering and provide lasting mental peace. The claim articulates a Buddhist perspective on the world, not an independently established truth of psychology.” If Buddhists have been debating how to be happy (or free from suffering) for some thousand years, even without a full version of the scientific method, I think they may be worth listening to on that topic, in conjunction with what a hundred years of psychological science has yet come up with. We don’t dismiss CBT when it tells us how to interpret the world, with the goal of relieving suffering – but isn’t this also normative and soteriological?
There’s a sense that Evan believes that Buddhist modernism drops the attractive, culturally interesting religious bits of Buddhism for practical self-help. For me this is its strength.
Twice, he makes a point to refer to the sexual and other scandals that have rocked Buddhism. He doesn’t point out that other religions have all had this too. And in just dropping it as a sort of dirty bomb, to my mind he misses a really important point. A huge weakness of Buddhism generally is its fetishising and aggrandisement of llamas and gurus. This stands in stark contrast to the Buddha’s sending out of mendicant monks to preach. It gives gurus and llamas too much power and power corrupts. From the power given to these leading figures by religious practice, abuses will follow like night from day. Modernism needs to step much further away from these practices.
Why does he not make this point? Because for him, Buddhism is something to be studied as a quirky religious system that should stay in its own lane. But for many of us, it’s a set of transformative basic beliefs and practices that help us to be happier. And for that, we don’t need rebirth, we don’t need powerful gurus, we don’t need complex rituals and we don’t need authoritative hierarchies.