Abstract

There are various reasons why one might choose not to be a Buddhist, given diverging understandings of the fundamental commitments of Buddhism. This review-article offers an evaluation and response to arguments made by Evan Thompson in Why I Am Not a Buddhist (2020). Thompson provides a trenchant critique of trends in modern secular forms of Buddhism, drawing parallels between the ‘constructed-self’ of cognitive sciences and the illusory nature of self of Buddhist thought; offering scientific ‘proof’ for the truth of Buddhism; identification of Buddhism as ‘mind science’; identification of the reductionism inherent in ‘neural’ Buddhism’s attempt to validate Buddhist metaphysics by peeking inside the brain; evaluation of the secularist belief that mindfulness practice offers direct, ‘unmediated’ experience of reality; and the problematic nature of side-stepping questions of enlightenment or secularising notions like nirvana to better suit a Western audience. Thompson argues these concepts are more complex and contested than Buddhist Modernists acknowledge. While these critiques show why Thompson is not a Buddhist modernist, this article articulates why they pose no challenge to Buddhism as a lived philosophy and practice. Furthermore, while Thompson offers a careful reflection on the science-Buddhism dialogue there remain contextualising questions go unaddressed that leave one feeling more charitably inclined towards Buddhist Exceptionalists and their endeavours.