Why I Am Not a Buddhist Hardcover – January 28, 2020

The author's central thesis is that cosmopolitanism, which views humanity as one collective, wherein each individual embodies a worldly citizenship, so to speak, is the best approach for Buddhism applications. The majority of the text serves to clear up what Thompson views as Western characterizations of Buddhism and Buddhist ideas and practices, such as enlightenment and meditation. Thompson argues that Buddhist modernism's downplaying of the mythological aspects of Buddhism while aggrandizing the aspects of meditation and its effects, namely enlightenment, is unjustified. Thompson argues that a divorce between Buddhist's more supernatural aspects and more naturalistic aspects is unwarranted because Buddhism's central ideologies are inherently soteriological and normative, and thus inseparable from what neural Buddhists and Buddhist naturalists seek to extract from Buddhism. Thompson also criticizes Buddhist exceptionalism arguing that it is a primary component of Buddhist modernism, and cites it as one of the reasons why he cannot see himself as a Buddhist modernist.Thompson also has done a wide survey of the other current books popular on the Western Buddhist bookshelves. Among the contemporary authors Thompson discusses are David Barash, Robert Wright, Sam Harris, Alan Wallace, Thomas Metzinger, Miri Albahari, Shinzen Young and Joseph Goldstein. I have also read quite a bit of these authors' works on these topics as well. Among Thompson's discussions of them, a favorite of mine is Thompson's critique of Robert Wright's 'Why Buddhism is True', wherein Thompson sympathizes with Wright's central claim that “Buddhism’s diagnosis of the human predicament is fundamentally correct, and that its prescription is deeply valid and urgently important”, while Thompson disagrees with Wright's line of reasoning to defend this. This summarized my sentiments when I finished 'Why Buddhism is True' exactly. Thompson also gives a staunch criticism of neural Buddhism striking down the notion that cognitive processes such as mindfulness, attention, and especially enlightenment can be identified to neural processes, and instead advocating for his enactive approach of embodied cognitive science. He is not in favor of the 2014 Scientific American article 'Mind of the Meditator', particularly its cognitive neuroscience perspective on the cycle of mindfulness and mind-wandering. Thompson also appears particularly fond of 'The Phenomenological Matrix' model (which reminds me personally of Allan Hobson's AIM model). Thompson wraps up his argumentation complimenting Kwame Anthony Appiah's philosophical cosmopolitanism.Prior to reading this book, I was sympathetic to a lot of Buddhist modernism and Buddhist naturalism, and still am after reading the book. At times, I felt that Thompson's opposing of Buddhist modernism sometimes failed to represent it in its best light. Buddhist's modernists are onto something and are doing valuable work advancing a naturalistic understanding of the 'enlightenment' mental state and the practice of meditation. For example, the mindfulness-mindwandering cycle figure in the 'Mind of the Meditator' article is strong stride forward in contemplative neuroscience. I encourage more research like this. My view is that even though Buddhism's central focus is 'enlightenment', 'enlightenment' is not a uniquely Buddhist phenomenon. Cases such as Eckhart Tolle's awakening are exemplary that 'enlightenment' has its own independent existence outside of Buddhist context, which is the more encompassing perspective on it that the Buddhist modernists are framing. Such a cognitive neuroscience that employs the scientific tractability of 'enlightenment' and meditative practice would be fruitful for the human collective. Thompson himself has done a great job of making Buddhist contemplative practices more scientifically tractable and philosophically digestible to Westerners, such as the meditation, lucid dreaming and yoga nidra practices discussed in his previous book (my personal all-time favorite) 'Waking, Dreaming, Being'. This is why I was surprised at his critique of the 'Mind of the Meditator' cognitive neuroscience model of meditation, seeing as his WDB book also offers a profound cognitive neuroscience perspective on meditation.What I would love to see from Thompson in the future is a book that offers a positive thesis. I would love a book that offers a hypothesis for guiding a cognitive science and neuroscience approach to understanding the enlightenment state. Thompson could expand on the Shinzen Young quote he cited: "you can think of enlightenment as a kind of permanent shift in perspective that comes about through the direct realization that there is no thing called ‘self’ inside you". An accompanying expounding on topics such as the autobiographical self, narrative identity, reflective self-awareness and prereflective self-awareness and other phenomenological matters in a cognitive neuroscience context would be very interesting. Based on Thompson's prior works, I feel that Thompson has a book like this in him. I can envision work similar in nature to that of neurologist James Austin's book 'Zen and the Brain', which could be a role model for how one goes about discussing a cognitive neuroscience of enlightenment.

An incisive critique of trends in Western Buddhism, by someone quite close to being a Buddhist themselves. Buddhism tends to be focused on to the exclusion of other contemplative traditions, so this push-back against that huge current in our culture is most welcome. I too once thought becoming a Buddhist was a natural progression as a meditator, and that Buddhism had developed a science of the mind. Indeed it does have an organized set of observations and theory, but standards of evidence are higher with modern scientific instruments and any claims from Buddhism must be tested as stringently as any other theory. What are we to do with claims of enlightenment from Taoism and Hinduism, even Carmelite christianity? They all have to be checked against modern theory and observations, and Buddhism has unfairly been given a special status that it has not yet earned. I find the author's points undeniable and important, as Buddhism is spreading without enough critical thought on what exactly is entailed.

The author, as it is evident from the title of the book, is not a Buddhist but a friend of Buddhism. He wanted to become a Buddhist at certain times in his life, but found that the Buddhist communities with which he collaborated had very much a Buddhist exceptionalist attitude, a sense of having found the true path, a sense of superiority. So he feels more as cosmopolitan. Cosmopolitanism is the idea that all people belong to one human family and should encompass different ways of life. There are many different traditions and beliefs and ways of life, and they must be respected for their differences. Cosmopolitanism provides better framework for appreciating Buddhism and for understanding religion and science than Buddhist modernism.For the writer, there is no doubt that Buddhism is a religion, just like Christianity. The latter believes in the teachings of Jesus while Buddhism believes in nirvana, karma, rebirth etc.. The question of whether science and religion are compatible or incompatible is the question of whether religion and art or science and art are compatible or incompatible. Religion is not in itself incompatible or compatible with science. It depends on how you practice religion and how you think about science.The concept of 'Buddhist science' is also incorrect. All religions are trying to prove themselves compatible with science, and Buddhism is no exception here.Very little is known about the historical Buddha. The Buddha did not write anything, nor is there anything written about him by his contemporaries. His teachings were recorded only centuries after his death, far from where he lived and in languages other than Buddha was using. There is much less known about Buddha as it is known about Jesus.

Balderdash, writes Evan Thompson, in a delightful exercise of reasoning. Buddhism is not brain science; it is a religion that encourages meditation on its path to enlightenment. Its goals - harmony, peace, enlightenment - are not scientific, they are ethical and moral and, at heart, religious. There is nothing scientific about those worthy objectives. Thompson, who was raised in an American Buddhist environment, is himself as close to a Buddhist as you can get, or maybe he is trying to save the religion he belongs to from claims that cannot be sustained. He reserves the right to keep his mind working accurately amidst the various claims of modernist Buddhism to be a kind of "mind science". A highly engaging discussion by a first rate mind. I am grateful to the author for having favoured me with such refinement of thought. I wish every discussion were as precise and enlightened. Fluffy thinkers should avoid this book; they might not appreciate its bracing clarity. First rate, if you like that sort of thing.

I was shocked by the lack of penetrative understanding in this book. I enjoyed the Thompson, Varela an Rosch book, more than thirty ears ago, and so I naively expected better. This book does not get to the core of the Buddhist meditation process, while he asserts he knows what meditation is and how it achieves its ends. I see a conflict between his idea that Buddhist meditative culture is normative and his claim that it soteriological.A disappointing read. And the audio version was badly read. (Who on earth suggested to him that he should read the footnotes - complete with URLs! I had to wait while droned through "h-t-t-p-forwardslash-forwardslash-colon etc. to the very end... h-t-m-l! End footnote."And, why don't the producers of these things establish the pronunciation of Indian languages before the reader is given the texts?

This book would appeal to an academic, it’s well though out and presented in a rational manner. That being said, for the average person a large dictionary will be required to plow through this book. Unless you have had a more formal institutional education this book is not for you.

Good