Ep158: Why I Am Not A Buddhist - Dr Evan Thompson

Dr Evan Thompson is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of British Columbia, an Associate Member of the Department of Asian Studies and the Department of Psychology, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada.
Evan recounts his upbringing in his father’s intentional community, the Lindisfarne Association, and shares stories of childhood encounters with teachers of Zen, Sufism, Tibetan Buddhism, Yoga, and more.
Evan traces his intellectual and academic trajectories, and reflects on the problems of community dynamics and religious perennialism that his father’s community faced.
Evan then outlines his critique of what he calls ‘Buddhist Exceptionalism’, as laid out in his book ‘Why I Am Not A Buddhist’.
As part of this critique, Evan addresses subjects such as why Buddhism is not a science of the mind (or of anything else), why presentations of the historical Buddha used by figures such as Goenka are a useful fiction, the problems of borrowing the authority of science for the purposes of Buddhist evangelism, and the surprising influence of Protestantism on Buddhism’s development in Asia.
Evan also reflects on the future of Buddhism and explores the question, ‘what is enlightenment?’.
…
www.guruviking.com/podcast/158-why-i-am-not-a-buddhist-evan-thompson
Also available on KZbin, iTunes, & Spotify - search ‘Guru Viking Podcast’.
…
Topics include:
00:00 - Intro
01:23 - Evan’s upbringing in his father’s intentional community
06:38 - Exposure to Zen via Richard Baker Roshi
09:34 - Zen takeover of the Lindisfarne Association
11:13 - Childhood encounters with Buddhist, Sufi, Yoga, and Christian teachers
14:29 - Evan’s distaste for Chogyam Trungpa’s scene
16:48 - Fractious community dynamics and the Zen takeover
21:19 - Problems of perennialism
25:03 - An ecology of mysticism
26:32 - Religious superiority
28:18 - Evan’s intellectual development and academic trajectory
35:36 - Buddhist exceptionalism and the Mind & Life Institute
41:20 - What is Buddhist modernism
44:065 - Evan’s misgivings about Buddhist exceptionalism
47:37 - Evan summarises his critique
49:21 - Reactions from colleagues
54:44 - Why do elite academics engage in Buddhist apologetics?
56:58 - Goenka’s useful fiction of the historical Buddha
01:01:09 - B Alan Wallace and religious vs academic register
01:04:19 - Exceptionalism as evangelism and exhortation
01:05:20 - The core philosophical engine of Buddhism
01:07:41 - Buddhism is not scientific
01:10:56 - Personal experience and ‘test and see’
01:15:59 - Is Buddhist philosophy uniquely rich?
01:21:12 - What is enlightenment?
01:25:00 - Awakening as a regulative ideal
01:27:20 - What counts as the experience of awakening?
01:32:28 - Protestant Christianity’s surprising influence on Buddhism in Asia
01:40:23 - What would convert Evan to Buddhism
01:42:22 - Exceptionalism harms Buddhism and science
…
To find out more about Evan Thompson, visit:
- evanthompson.me/
For more interviews, videos, and more visit:
- www.guruviking.com
Music ‘Deva Dasi’ by Steve James

[@sandyellis6068]

Wow. Thank you for this, Guru Viking. I was in a religious cult for 15 years when I was young, and I see red flags of cultish behaviour and ideology everywhere. Including in Tibetan Buddhism. I’ve been reluctant to admit this to myself, because I love TB and have benefited enormously from my engagement with it. But yes, in the spirit of open minded enquiry and honesty I have to admit I hear what Dr Evan Thomson is saying, and I’m relieved to know that I’m not wrong in seeing and feeling a certain pressure in TB communities to abstain from critical analysis of certain aspects of Western TB. This notion of Buddhist exceptionalism is very confronting, and because I’m determined never to fall prey to religious beliefs posing as scientific certainties, I’ll never forget that term and will learn more about what it means and how to dissemble it in my engagement with Buddhism. Again, thanks 😊

[@aalbi2781]

What attracted me to Buddhism and "why I am a Buddhist" was seeing firsthand in certain individuals the result of years of meditation. Their emphasis on wisdom, compassion and working directly with one's thoughts, emotions, appearances etc., I had never heard before in my upbringing. In this timeless tradition, we are encouraged to drop all credentials, reference points and labels, even the term "Buddhism" to recognize the way things are. Dr. Thompson's opinions, gentle as they may be, are way too intellectual and full of such reference points. It really doesn't matter if the historic Buddha was a scientist or the dates, places and names are accurate or not. Is addressing our primal attachments, aversions and bewilderment relevant today? The core teachings of Buddhism have always been there and still very much alive and taught. If you read ancient Indian and Tibetan texts that predate Chritstian influence and compare them with more contemporary writings, it's the same message. The notion that the real meaning of Emptiness, the hallmark of Buddhist teachings, inexpressible and beyond intellect could be equated with exceptionalism is absurd. Sure, we humans can fall into partisan traps, but that's what the Dharma is always warning about.

[@freetibet1000]

I agree with you. The purpose of Buddhist practice is to completely overcome anger, desire, ignorance and all other hindrances that stand in the way of enlightenment. I sometimes wonder if the word enlightenment is a problem because it may mean something very different for a western mind? I sometimes get the feeling that some people think that the type of enlightenment the Buddha described is one that can be attained through intellectual thinking and studies alone. Nothing can be further from the truth! It is unfortunate that descriptions of the Buddha dharma such as ‘science of mind’ has become popular buzzwords in our modern world. It connects the dharma with scientific thinking and tradition and obscure its amazing capacities of radical transformation of our whole being that reaches beyond this life and this world. A lot of people do meditate and really try to apply the methods according to the tradition, but I sometimes wonder if we really understand and trust its true powers of transformation? Have we really understood the enormity of what enlightenment and buddhahood really is? Do we really get goosebumps every time we hear words such as Shunyata or Prajna? Do we really pray with outmost conviction and desperation for the dissolution of our ignorance? Are we really prepared to let go of all our self-cherishing ideas and attitudes, or abandoning all hopes for worldly salvations? Or, is our heart and mind still much more attached to this world than the possibility of reaching liberation? Are we really doing all we can to ensure a positive transition at the time of death? Intellectual thinking and speculations cannot help us at the time of death. Only the deepest form of transformation of our own mind have the power to lead to liberation from our endless wanderings in the ocean of suffering. As long as we only half-heartedly think that we ought to do something about our predicament nothing much will actually change. Not until we manage to give rise to an absolute and unshakable desperation to get out of this dreadful existence, we will continue to wander endlessly from one miserable existence to the next. The greatest disservice we can do to ourselves is to let our modern education stand in the way and block us from understanding how truly revolutionary and transformative the path of the Buddha Dharma really is. Ironically, it is as if modern education make us much less prepared for our most important task than traditional societies did.

[@aalbi2781]

@@freetibet1000 Well said. We have information overload in these modern times. Most of us suffer from the half-hearted approach. May we truly "turn our minds to the Dharma".

[@freetibet1000]

@@aalbi2781 spot on my friend! As one great master once said; ‘all we need to focus on is to increase our Awareness. Nothing else in life is worth distracting ourselves with.’ That in itself will lead us on the right path towards deeper understandings and higher grounds. I feel that you know exactly what that means! 🙏

[@nicholasoberry1010]

This is exactly what attracted me to Buddhism as well. But I actually love critiques like this because they pop the balloon of accreted concepts that have slowly taken me away from that simplicity and directness. It's so easy to get involved in a tradition and find oneself taking on a worldview and conceptual framework without even realizing it.

[@emiliafernandez4234]

👏👏👏

[@horednaxela6919]

As usual, another outstanding incisive interview. I found this one especially interesting as Professor Thompson has touched upon a gnawing suspicion I've had for some time since Westernized mindfulness or more precisely McMindfulness has become popular. My Buddhist relatives, had a deeply religious context (including belief in deities, religious iconography, etc) for their practices of which meditation is only ONE aspect of their faith. Here in the West, Buddhist and Hindu meditation (e.g. TM) IMO are presented to the public with a veneer of scientific credibility/research while almost totally neglecting the religious, ethics, moral, and philosophical contexts so as to appeal to our more secular, scientific and/or Judeo-Christian sensibilities by strictly emphasizing the psycho-physical benefits of meditation. Maybe as a poor analogy, it would be like atheists and Christians alike flocking to the daily practice of reciting the Lord's Prayer because numerous scientific studied found out that Christians reciting that prayer reduced their blood pressure and made them more stress-resilient. While mindfulness may indeed make one more relaxed or less reactive, some research seems to bear out the consequences of neglecting the religious contexts for these contemplative practices: adverse psychological effects of meditation for some individuals (e.g. de-realization and/or de-personalization which ironically may be considered progress in Buddhism/Hinduism, if internalized correctly in a religious/philosophical context ), reduced remorse for offenses. Hence, we now hear the military has utilized mindfulness not for just the treatment of former veterans suffering from PTSD but also for the training of more efficient killing-machines, i.e. soldiers, like the 'mindful' sniper. Same goes for businesses that view employee mindfulness training, TM et al as an investment to better the bottom line with increased employee productivity. Now replace the word 'mindfulness' or 'meditation' in the previous sentences with "practicing the Lord's Prayer" to see the absurdity of it all.

[@Royalroadtotheunc]

Any practice that involves concentration and mindfulness can be twisted around and used for purposes other than the original ones. I understand that the Samurai warriors of ancient Japan borrowed their concentration techniques from Zen to be more efficient as warriors.

[@reinhardjung8196]

Very interesting and sophisticated view, informative and lucid in many aspects. Missing for me is the teaching of the direct experience found in all mystical traditions that is free of all cultural and social aspects. Those who have directly experienced that cannot be measured by viewing them from outside through the analysis of their cultural or social context they were speaking from. For me that is the common ground of all religious experience. If this sounds simplistic (as was said in the interview) it is because Dr Evan Thompson's view is most complex and historically oriented. People who made this shift into that absolute direct experience often declared that they had transcended Buddhism (or whatever their tradition was). Finding out what we are not could be followed by the investigation of Who we Are - beyond our intellectual understanding and erudition.

[@hoale11]

I am Vietnamese and raised in a Buddhist family in South. Vietnam. I now live in the US. I did not quite understand and appreciate Buddhism till a few years ago thanks to KZbin. I have never heard of Buddhism as scientific but rather as philosophical. I view Buddhism as a way of life, a philosophy that helps me live a better life, how to accept and manage impermanence or what Camus refers to as ‘absurdity.’ In general, Buddhism helps us to reduce suffering or to transform suffering. I agree with Dr. Evan Thompson that the three core of Buddhism that leads to one’s inner peace is to eliminate ignorance greed and anger. However, if you reject being a Buddhist as you disagree with the modern Buddhism that claims Buddhism is scientific, I am sorry to hear that. I have never heard that Buddha tried to prove that Buddhism is scientific. The teaching of Buddhism is how to live so you can avoid or reduce or transform suffering - the cause and effect as you mentioned. Thank you for your video especially especially the interviewer who asked great questions. Buddha encouraged his students to challenge him as he did not claim himself the ultimate truth….

[@VKN..]

Chào cô ạ! Con cũng đến từ Việt Nam và cũng là 1 Phật tử luôn....con thường vào xem các video về tiếng Anh như thế này để học thêm tiếng anh, lại thêm các video nói về chủ đề Phật giáo nữa thì thật sự tuyệt vời luôn ạ! 😊🙏🙏🙏

[@breathspinecore]

Excellent interview-- great questions and follow-ups. I've read this book four times, partly because it's so stimulating, but also because it's so "enlightening" in the traditional sense of the word, on how to shed light on a subject, or process-- that of critiquing a tradition in a respectful and productive manner. This interview is a great addendum to the book, and just like the book, I'm sure I'll be coming back to it many more times. Really enjoy your channel.

[@ezeeproproperties8352]

For a clear description of the differences between religion, philosophy and science, and how they relate to Buddhism, Alan Wallace is the one to listen to 🙏

[@paldenngodup8238]

One of the best interviews that I have come across . So much to learn! Thank you .

[@sissiphys7834]

Looking forward this conversation! Can also highly recommend the article "The problem of mindfulness" by Sahanika Ratnayake. Describing the problem with meditation schools that can lead to the problem of dissocation & deconstruction of our emotional intuition.

[@tomtillman]

Yep. Meditation needs a warning label. At a recent Goenka retreat, I was a little surprised that there is no disclaimer form. Doesn't happen very often, but sometimes it gets problematic.

[@anecdotal_mattybs5435]

@@tomtillman what country did you do it in? I think they get away with it in the uk (when I did mine years ago anyway) by asking about a persons mental health before accepting them……maybe? Though I saw a few people in the grip of some really bad issues……including me 😬🤦‍♂️

[@gloriousprajna]

I am a Buddhist and I appreciate where you are coming from. I am however not sure how many Buddhists would feel the need to dress up their religion with a scientific garb and declare their exceptionalism. Regardless of religion we all use science to make pots and pans and hurl missiles at each other. I don’t see a need to blend science and Buddhism. I feel you are saying that as well. There are however rational and scientific elements that are inherent Within Buddhism. The defining elements of Buddhism is friendship and compassion that stem out of Shuniyata ( Emptiness) I heard a Zen teacher say “ meditation is good for nothing”

[@sherrilawrence662]

Thank you for your incredible podcast. I found it recently and am enjoying and learning from all your interviews 🙏🤗

[@be1tube]

This is my favorite interview I've seen this year. It is related to a recent series of videos from Doug's Dharma about whether the Buddha was scientific and in what circumstances he "de-mythologized" religious practices of his day.

[@metta1773]

The Buddha was not “a Buddhist” - what he did was to contemplate deeply, and clearly understand how the world/universe and our minds work and then teach it to the world in a systematic way. It was only later on that this system got to be referred to as “Buddhism.”

[@alankuntz6494]

The Buddha was not “a Buddhist..Oh duh, thanks for that deep insight

[@allpointstoone4346]

Good comment

[@martinratcliffe5987]

The Buddha was a Buddha. That means self awakened in the tradition, a true revivalist in authentic truth teachings. Even from those times, however, his disciples were happy to refer to themselves as Buddhists, as in ancient India it was a privelege to be a disciple of a great teacher. To pretend that Buddhism didn't exist is simply not true. A distinct movement was clearly underway. Only the western mind takes issue with being a follower of a teacher, due largely to arrogance, lack of reverence or gratitude, and delusions of intellectual independence. We like to think we are very clever, very special and very original. We identify very strongly with our egos, our supposed individuality. Early Buddhist went by various names, but one of them was shakyaputtas, or sons of the shakyan. They clearly had some kind of designation that set them apart from brahminists or Jains etc. Even if simply 'follower of the buddha', which is basically long form for 'Buddhist'.

[@alankuntz6494]

@@martinratcliffe5987 yes sravakas, shakyaputtas , that's a new one to yeah the shakyas. As an incredible research endeavor and newer stores stories there are about that in the meaning of that. Yeah my understanding is the Alaya Kalama and the other guy upasheka we're pretty much Buddhas last two teachers and they were probably Jains themselves. Look whether you call yourself a Buddhist or not want to identify to a Buddhist or not really seems irrelevant to me . There are so many different so-called Masters lineages and turnings of the will of Dharma after Buddha and some of them even dovetail a lot with the various Hindu lineages and ideas. I'm not a Buddhist either I don't call myself a Buddhist although I feel like a Buddhist a resonate a lot with Buddhism. for me the main message is, your experiencing any suffering, if you are miserable , confused, there is a way out of some of this a great deal of it. Whether you're a Buddhist or a Alara kalamist it is relatively easy and simple to attain what a Alara Kalama taught Buddha..... The sphere of nothingness meditation which actually is considered to be Nirvana from a certain perspective . You can even read about it in the lankavatara sutra .. it may be considered a phase or first phase of enlightenment but who cares really if it allows you the experience of calm abiding that leads into piti (Bliss) and the actual experience of transcending any thought idea concept or blabber that may be troubling you. Some people want to refer to it as the transcendent some people want to refer to it as the fourth Jhana .. later theravada develop eight Jhanas what is the elaboration of four Jhanas . It's Doesn't really matter in the whole idea of enlightenment really doesn't matter. if people can attain just the first Jhana of calm abiding true whatever type of meditation practice you perfect too. You are contributing immensely to your own sanity and the sanity of it doesn't matter what you call if you're .If you are a daily meditator all I want to say to you is thank you very much thank you very much. Keep on keeping on brothers and sisters.

[@metta1773]

@@martinratcliffe5987 Just like a “scientist” is a follower of science.

[@mindfulmoments4956]

In contrast to what Evan says, I think there is nothing wrong in investigating brain changes that happen as a result of meditation - this is because brain changes in certain regions are known to correlate with reductions in stress, etc. - So, we get an idea as to what is happening (in biology) as a result of meditation.

[@lindam4259]

I'm glad that Dr. Thompson clarified that his observations were in regard to Western Buddhist centers in the Western world. This is a type of secularized "Buddhism". I follow Theraveda Buddhism, which some call early Buddhism ( since it holds firmly to only the teachings of the Buddha and in the Pali language). Many monks trained in this tradition can be found here on KZbin giving wonderful Dhamma talks. And many of these monks have come from the West.

[@cadlag35]

This was an excellent interview. Would also be great if you could bring on Dr. Jay Garfield (who is also a philosopher, and has recently released a book on no-self).

[@baizhanghuaihai2298]

Seconded! Yes, please bring on Dr. Garfield! Thank you for all your work with these fascinating interviews!

[@martinratcliffe5987]

David Brazier writes beautifully on what seems to be a similar topic. I look forward to watching this

[@sendakan666]

Very well conducted interview, thank you. The guest was refreshingly honest. His characterization of Buddhist scholars making 'moves' in an implict power struggle between cultures was a bit unfortunate though. The point I think the Buddhists were making is that if meditation works, it should be measurable in some way. That is the point of intersection with science. Simple, really.

[@renakmans3521]

Meditate and keep quite. The rest is just the boat crossing the river.

[@angusp5178]

Great episode, broadly agree with what Dr. Thompson states. On a few points, for clarity, as regards the 'Goenka' vipassana technique, so-called - the technique itself was developed by U Ba Khin, not Goenka. The rhetoric that Dr. Thompson critiques that was used in the promotion of U Ba Khin's vipassana by Goenka is certainly Goenka's and strongly derives from Goenka's earlier engagement with C20 'modernist' Hindutva discourse. A discussion between Dr. Thompson and Alan Wallace would be fascinating Strongly sympathetic to both of their perspectives, albeit currently detecting a degree of 'essentialism' in the categories 'religion', 'science', 'the Buddha', and 'Buddhism' as Dr. Thompson is applying them here. e.g. in order to make his case, he seems at times to invoke a notion of an authentic early Buddhism himself. Perhaps a root cause for the thriving of the Buddhist modernist tendency and its engagements with science is precisely that both find abundant support and nourishment within Buddhist traditions due to commonalities.... and c.f. arguments made re. possible historic links between Buddhism and science and skepticism, Pyrrho, and Scythian thought, the latter as defined by Christopher Beckwith etc.

[@ravindrajilthe507]

Really good presentation. I think today’s science is just one part of the Buddhism and in reality the Buddhism is till need to explore from point of view of practical experience in meditation and feeling, emotions, behaviours and neuroscience behaviours and so on

[@TashiDelek1]

Buddha's teaching had only one purpose: to free ourselves from suffering and show us how we can achieve it. The teaching of the Four Noble Truths is an excellent example. Both Buddhism and scientists share common objectives - to seek truth as much as possible through questions, answers, and thought experiments in meditation for Buddhism, and through research for scientists. All scientific endeavors are primarily aimed at promoting our well-being, and all Buddhist endeavors are aimed at relieving suffering. So, basically, we are talking about the same thing in different ways.

[@lobsangdhargya2853]

Very inspiring interview 💕🙏💕

[@deborahbayer5798]

Thank you so much for this conversation. Dr. Thompson's ideas are beautifully considered and articulated. Great interview.

[@mindfulmoments4956]

I felt that Evan does too much talking and intellectualizing - without much depth in terms of spiritual understandings. I feel that there is something subtle that Evan has not understood, which is a bit difficult to explain in words. Buddhism IS a ‘science’ (although it is different from empirical science) - it is so sad that he might be misleading so many people .

[@TheGuiltsOfUs]

No it is not

[@linhai69]

The intellect can bring you to the gates of heaven, but to enter you must leave it behind. Those that can't do, teach!

[@saraswati999]

Wonderful interview what tradition then Dr Evan Thompson decided to align with ?

[@catherinekasmer9905]

Buddhists do not ask that anyone take their views on authority. That said, this man has not done the whole sequence of transformative exercises so his opinions are intellectual at best. I feel he has made an untrue assertion regarding exceptionalism. He would be better served by finding a practice which serves him and deeply engaging in it rather than sullying the profound meanings of Buddha.

[@mm-gg4hc]

See Amazon reviewer Snow Brain's detailed review of Why I Am Not a Buddhist; many important questions raised, issues identified, worth carefully scrutinizing.

[@equalsone6741]

This is also valueble and it will help "Buddhist" practitioners in the "west" for sure. What a interesting time, totality of reality enrools right in front of our eyes/mind

[@NeoShaman]

It would be great to see an interview with a trully awakened person. What I mean by that, is a person who openly says about his awakening, and can explain what he meens by that.

[@metta1773]

I think such a person would not bother to come and explain things.

[@Lipinki.luzyckie]

Guru viking did a lot of very insightful interviews with people that consider themselves to attain the buddhist path, as seen by different traditions. The question is - do you yourself consider them as genuine, why yes or why not.

[@NeoShaman]

@@metta1773 Yes, true, but he also wouldn't mind if asked.

[@NeoShaman]

​@@Lipinki.luzyckie I found the interview with Stepen Snyder way more accurate, but still not genuine enough. He even explains how he asseses awakening of his students, and there is a lot of truth in it. But awakening is not a partial thing. If there is fragmentation, it's just another state of mind. I need to say, that I didn't see them all, so if you saw a better example, do let me know.

[@Lipinki.luzyckie]

@@NeoShaman you have to watch them yourself, my opinion doesn't matter. And my opinion is such, that the enlightenment is overrated. I mean that the only thing enlightened people could do is to describe their techniques and experiences, and hope to help somebody to understand their own path. They are not transmitting any special things - any more special than any other beings. Any being could teach you about your buddhahood. And it's also true, that it's hard to fell any genuine vibe from the video. Videos are kind of cultural texts, still highly conceptual. These interviews at the end of the day are only the kind of journalistic record about these people's views on things, not the record of the people themselves.

[@baizhanghuaihai2298]

Yay!!! Excellent!!!👏👏👏😄👍👍Evan is awesome! Thanks for having him on, really looking forward to it! I have noticed over the years, both as a serious practitioner and an ex- serious practitioner with an appreciation for certain aspects of various Buddhadharma systems, the “Buddhist exceptionalism” attitude produces and/or encourages some of the most insufferable egotists out there. You see it in-person and also in comments sections with Buddhist fundamentalists who talk exactly like some crazed evangelical Christians, as though the jargon they are spewing is obviously True, capital T, and anybody who doesn’t agree obviously just doesn’t “get it”. It’s gross, just another form of self-cherishing- and I have no problem whatsoever with self-cherishing, just don’t be a sanctimonious hypocrite by saying you are against it and then doing it, that’s all. I think a lot of people with deep maladjustment to life find a “spiritual path” and use it in the way they might use psychotherapy, and that is where the deep defensiveness comes from. Like, if a brick fell out of place the whole edifice of their teleological schema would fall apart and they’d be left with the meaningless chaotic pain once again. So they meditate rather than medicate. It’s totally fine, people should just be up-front about it, that’d prevent a lot of problems.

[@anthonybrown7964]

I just want to point somethign out...“Buddhist exceptionalism” doesnt encourage/produce anythig - the defilements do.... lets not lose track of the actual problem here. If people simply practise The Dhamma properly, as per The Suttas, they will stop blaming anything external to the defilements

[@baizhanghuaihai2298]

@@anthonybrown7964 I spot the Buddhist fundy in the room. Hey guess what, the real problem is not believing hard enough in our lord and savior, Jesus Christ and his promise of eternal life! (I’m being sarcastic, I’m not a Christian, but your comment literally demonstrates the attitude that is being critiqued here.) People who don’t believe in Buddhism, which is a religion, aren’t interested in worrying about “defilements”, because that is a Buddhist concept, not a universal one. It’s nice that Buddhism works for you, whatever it does for you, but it’s not for everybody, nor does it need to be.

[@anthonybrown7964]

P.s. i actually agree with you that this is a real problem. People say theyre buddhist as an identity to cover pver boyles with the plaster of buddhism. Never tasting real Dharma.... but, my point was that its the defilements, or their ego thats the problem, not the religion :) thats all i meant..

[@baizhanghuaihai2298]

@@anthonybrown7964 I reject the existence of any such “defilements”, as they are socially constructed concepts that are part of the religion of Buddhism. They do not exist outside of a Buddhist context, that’s what I’m trying to get you to recognize. I made the Christian satirical comment because it’s the same thing. A few years ago, I went to a cousin’s wedding, which was officiated by an uncle, and the entire ceremony was full of evangelical Christian jargon, so much so that my partner and I commented that if a person is not raised in an environnement where such language is the norm, that person would be very perplexed as to what these people were even talking about. “Defilements” and the eradication of them from the mindstream, only makes sense in a culturally, religiously Buddhist context, not in a secular one.

[@thehiddenyogi8557]

@@anthonybrown7964 Very good. So it is, so it is.

[@evanblackie7510]

Great interview and subtle but interesting points. I don't claim great knowledge and am somewhat lapsed in practice but I've always thought Buddhism is great at opening one up to different aspects of reality, particularly realisation of emptiness as well as the experience of 'being' reality as it were. I assume these states are non-controversial as meaningful states in understanding reality philosophically ...? So I think the teachings of Buddhism and the focus on meditation are particularly good at opening people to such 'scientific' insights,, though of course I have no other experience, of say Jewish mysticism. But I think people are meaning that the modern Buddhist frame is exceptional in opening one up *relative to* the flawed Western examples of religion that had obviously deviated from their paths. But I agree fundamentally with Evan's points.

[@Shibby27ify]

Love this whole talk. I have to say there's one bias of modernist Buddhism that I rarely hear questioned: "Science of the mind... nature of the mind" lingo thrown out by heady dissociated modernists and put onto Buddhism. It tends to concretize how modern westerners overly value "the mind" when it really means the totality of mind-body subjectivity. The heart and deep body seem to come second in most forms of Buddhism. And it tends to be a monks practice made for monks. Coming out of Buddhism into the 4th Way and later the Diamond Approach, I very much began to realize how all pre-modern paths have a bias of having to at least pretend you're a monk to get any benefit. Like lay practitioners are second class to the committed ones, privileged enough to devote their life to meditation practice. Like a busy parent changing diapers cannot really get anywhere unless they can find a way to live to meditate. Also, modernist Buddhist sells Buddhism as an ultimate phenomenology when I'm discovering how the modern west is discovering a new "yoga" of consciousness that is very different from anything pre-modern. A "process model" or process type of work. Such as what has come out of the psychotherapeutic and phenomenological west. Think Eugene Gendlin, or Gestalt awareness practices or modern somatic therapies based off of these classical approaches. Pre-modern approaches are very top-down. Put practice upon experience to make experience change. The west is discovering something new, in my opinion, to actually go into the ego self. To allow it to unfold naturally. Almaas's work taught me this.

[@Shibby27ify]

Also, the modernist Buddhist culture seems to teach that Buddhism cuts to the heart of all of the BS of the other mystical traditions. There's something snoody that arises when modernists emphasize this. I find some paths have something unique, Buddhism with meditation and the deep mind, Hindu mysticism seems to have deep paths that represent most religions, Taoism and the deep subtle body, Sufism and the 'science' of consciousness through the deep heart and so on. But all have aspects of each other. I don't buy that idea that Buddhism contemplative practices somehow represent all of the others but just much more efficient.

[@keeks123]

Curious about the Diamond Approach. I’ve heard only a very little recently but love an approach that works through the body as well. I often feel that these more modern types of programs cost a pretty penny with courses and programs tho, making it a bit inaccessible for me. I might be misguided in what it entails tho.

[@thehiddenyogi8557]

The "Nature of Mind" is actually a technical term in Tibetan Buddhism and always has been. Synonyms are "Natural Mind," and "Mind As It Is...". But "Mind" with a capital M doesn't mean "mind" as modern westernized global culture thinks of it..... In eastern thought the Mind includes the 'heart.' It isn't centered in the head..... " The five skandhas include both body and mind. Four of the skandhas signify aspects or processes of the mind, while the skandha of "form' signifies the body and apparent materiality. I think people call it 'science' of mind because the only empirical method they know of is science. Science is only one empirical method. Meditation is another. Buddhism isn't the only tradition which teaches to meditate. You can read 'Autobiography of a Yogi' by Paramahansa Yogananda and there is a whole chapter called 'The Science of Kriya Yoga.' Actually that 'science' is based off of the Theosophical Society's teachings, which is a Western new age movement that became very influential in India and the New Age movement.

[@thehiddenyogi8557]

A bit off topic but some background of the topic: The Buddha taught a method. That method was based off of empirical investigation via meditation. Calming the fluctuations of the mind which reduces delusion/distortion which allows one to see the true nature as it is. Firsthand direct experience is what liberates. Rejecting cultural Brahmanism baggage, caste system, etc.... So the Greeks empire spread to Western India. Because the Greeks did not belong to any Hindu caste, they were outcast in Hindu Society. But the Buddhist societies welcomed them and they both shared a love of knowledge and 'truth.' There arose Greco-Buddhist empire. The Greeks were the first ones to make images and sculptures of the Buddha, modeling him with short curly locks of hair and sacred-geometrical proportions, modeled after the Greek God of Enlightenment: Apollo. There was a cultural exchange of ideas. From the Greeks, the Buddhists learned of the heroic ideal of savior, and there became the bodhisattva ideal. From the Buddhists the Greeks learned about empiricism and the empirical method of using firsthand experience to determine what is real and true. This empirical method became the foundation of science which didn't really become a method in its own right until Galileo. There was no 'science' or 'scientific method' in the time of the Buddha, and Buddhist meditation was not based on the scientific method per se. Obviously, it is subjective, not objective, so it can never be 'science' per se. What people really mean, as it seems to me, is that when people say that Buddhism is a 'science of mind' is that really it is 'an empirical method of discovering what is true and liberating in your own direct experience.' It has a lot in common with science. Like first to create laboratory conditions in the mind using shamatha to calm the waves and fluctuations of the mind which calms the causes of distortion and delusion and unclear seeing. Through jhana practice or 'right samadhi' all distortions are calmed and one can see clearly. Shamatha, calm abiding, can be thought of as creating laboratory conditions in the mind, and if Dr. Thompson doesn't like that analogy, then fine. Calling Buddhism a 'science' of the mind is a way that modern people, especially Westerners can relate to the teachings. I have heard Hindus also claim science. And of course there is Christian Science, hehe. He does have a point though that Buddhism doesn't have a monopoly on insight into reality. But he could try to be okay with those who choose to take refuge in the Buddha Dharma thinking it is the most relevant teachings for them with the least amount of 'suspension of disbelief' even if they use the word 'science.' It seems like Dr. Thompson is not a Buddhist and that is fine with me. But I don't think he knows what a Buddhist is actually.

[@hedfuka8608]

Thanx Viking ...👍😁

[@charliezax4717]

i am afraid that Dr. Evans has missed some of the main points of Buddhism. if he wants to have a better understanding of Buddhism he would be well advised to study the Dharma as taught by the Buddha. the Buddha teaches us to look inside our own hearts and try to remove the defilements therein, not to look out and judge other people. whether other people, monks or lay people, correctly follow the Dharma or not is of no concern. the Dharma teaches that all actions, speech and thoughts have their own karma. if Dr. Evans or anyone else studies the Dharma he stands to gain a better understanding of his own mind ,of others, of the world and of nature. then if he chooses to practice the Dharma or not is completely up to him.

[@RomanDianaOZ]

Maybe I did not understand his arguments too well, however, the impression that I got is that Dr Thompson hasn't really understood what Buddha's teachings were about. He clings to some semantics like whether meditation should be called science or not. The Buddha in fact taught the Eightfold path which is not just training of the mind but much much more. I think a much more interesting interview would have been if Dr Thompson had told us that he spent a few decades practicing The Eightfold Path preferably under tutelage of an accomplished dharma teacher. Otherwise, there is no point of taking a "scientific" approach towards meditation and especially enlightenment . Can you pick in one's brain and replicate their experience into another person? Would it help me if I knew that during the fourth Jhana there is increase in a certain brain wave or during Niroda there is another brain pattern? Well, I just described a scientific process and there are actually scientist who conduct such experiments. The paradox is that only a fully enlightened being can really know that what Buddha has taught was for real and until that happens one should approach Buddha's teachings with nothing more than trust (same as we give to our doctor or any other professional who provides advice) and actually practice and see for themselves. And with every step ask oursef does my experience align with what the buddha promised and taught? That is the only viable way to approach Buddha's teachings.... If it doesn't work then by all means go write a book or two ...

[@gunterappoldt3037]

Interesting talk. Thanks. Some supplemental remarks relating to some of Dr. E. Thompson´s theses, if I may: (a) Enlightenment(s) in Chán/Zen First, there seem to be two basic connotations with "bodhi/菩提": the one is "waking up" and the other something like "receiving/unfolding the light of realization". Secondly, there is a dao-zen-ish "superstructure", which can simultanously be "read" as "total dynamism" (S. Heine) and as "perfect matrix" (in nearly an eternalist way, according to which all movement ist just as-if-movement, so to speak). And the "visionary" basis for the endeavour of "realizing original enlightenment" (始觉本觉 [if I remember correctly]) is pointed to by the (i.m.o. nearly idential) concepts of the "tathagathagarbha" (Buddha-womb), and the "Buddha-nature". Thirdly, starting from the position of the daily life-world, there can be smaller, bigger, and greater "insights", that is, enlightening experiences in the plural, pointing together towards the big, utmost "nirwanic" telos (which is often linguistically tabooed as non-telos). (b) Protestantism and (post-)modernity I´m not sure if Protestantism really had such a big influence on Chán/Zen/Sôn/... Protestant missionarizing in the Far East seems to have started relatively late. But there is another connection: the "Protestant ethic" according to Max Weber. Namely in the 1980ies, when sociology re-entered the People´s Republic of China, the sociology of knowledge, including comparative studies on main "world-religions", pioneered by M. Weber, was studied more intensively. Key questions asked in this context were, e.g.: (ba) Did "sprouts of capitalism" exist in pre-modern China? (bb) Can European Protestantism (beginning with Martin Luther) and Far Eastern Chán/Zen be compared with regard to aspects/basic features, like: * Going back to the core creed (which implied an inclination towards the "reduction of complexity" of diverse sense-worlds), * (temporary) anti-ritualism and (some forms of) iconoclasm; as well as the * formation of a protestant-like "work ethos" (a famous quote, e.g., in this context, would be the saying attributed to Master Bâizhàng Huáihâi[?], e.g.: "一日不做,一日不食/short: No work, no eat!")? Makes some sense to me: Yes, there seem to be some parallels, which can be drawn.... (bc) One more point: As far as Chán/Zen has Daoist roots, the "individual direttissima" seems to be fore-shadowed, so to speak, by some early Daoist (meditative) practices, of which we can get some glimpses, for example, in the "Southern Flowery Country..." by Master Zhuang. Exciting topics, indeed. Thanks again. Greetings

[@deetissera1492]

Should one also write a book ‘i am not a musician’ ?? As there are numerous studies linking musicians or their habits or brain etc to neuroscience? And also other art, religious or other subjects ? Why can’t subjects or religions compare and contrast with science or any other subject or any other religion or sects of religion ? I guess we can write a number of books similar why i am not a Buddhist for every subject /religion Interesting discussion although

[@baizhanghuaihai2298]

If musicians made the same kind of claims that many Buddhists do, then I think such a book would indeed be necessary! But music doesn’t, because music is not the same sort of thing as Buddhism. One could of course study the brain’s functioning during any kind of activity, and indeed neuroscientists do just that! But that is not what Dr. Thompson is talking about. He is simply saying that Buddhism is often given a special status amongst religions, with claims of special knowledge often goin unchallenged. Any practice or ideology which makes claims of access to special knowledge outside of empirical observation and experimentation is open to the same critiques. Comparing and contrasting two ideologies is not the problem; the problem is equating one thing to another unrelated thing (i.e. saying that Buddhism IS a form of science, when it simply is not).

[@mispanludensprinck5652]

The tradition of these book titles was started by Bertrand Russell with his famous book "Why I am not Christian". Then followed, for example, Ibn Warraq's courageous book "Why I am not Muslim". Today there are certainly many books with the title "Why I am not...".

[@baizhanghuaihai2298]

@@mispanludensprinck5652👍I loved Russell’s book; as a teenager from an evangelical Christian home, it was life changing.

[@jesuisravi]

I heard of this author first when he was mentioned in one of the talks of Swami Sarvapriyananda. I can resonate with his distaste for Zen as a young person. It seems to me sometimes that if the military ever should be inclined to adopt a religion to especially favor and foment, it would not be any form of Christianity. It would be some kind of Zen. Oh well....maybe not.

[@johninman7545]

Chan Buddhism isn't the same as Zen. Chan is more well rounded. Moral precepts are essential

[@scorpionsting600]

1.11 Guru V has had definite experiences from Buddhism. I suspect that Dr. Evan here, obviously a fine man, has not. He has stayed mainly in the conceptual-academic realm with Buddhism in which realm I think many of his objections have great merit. Buddhist exceptionalism is definitely a problem and many of his other objections have merit. But there are great esoteric lineages with what we call 'Buddhism' and one can have meaningful experiences which also involve fundamental transformation over time as the application of discipline, heart and intelligence always engenders. He is right also about the science business, but Buddhism IS a type of science in a way that is fundamentally different from western science. It's different, yes, but also has its own validity. Dr. Evan is getting caught up in the words and is not grocking the sense perhaps...

[@anndreacruz4630]

In the 1990's when I attended UCLA there was always talk of #SpiritualEnlightenment. Being born and raised Christian, I really had no idea of the history of religion and how it ties back to societies Agricultural needs as well as morality. Only through the discovery of other religions did I have the realization of the laws and metaphors in the Bible I spent my entire life adhering to. I discovered Scientology to provide me the growth I continue to need when I am faced with adversity and need understanding. The word literally means the study of Science and we study what the Spirit is doing to the body when we experience misunderstandings as well as how to overcome adversity. I've never learned so much about me and I've developed a better insight of those around me. The life extension courses are the best tools which have helped me immensely.

[@ellensteadman7742]

Neuroscientists seem to have "consciousness" as a key hard question. In Buddhism consciousness is one of the aggregates ... That should immediately explain why modern science related to study of consciousness has a different direction to Buddhism.

[@miriamwilcox4123]

Yay for listening to critical friends and “non-aligned mystics” 🌟

[@charliezax4717]

if Dr. Evans or anyone else really wants to understand why he is not a Buddhist or why he is a Buddhist he can find out by reading the book “What Makes You Not a Buddhist” by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse, 2011 Shambhala Press.

[@ushojedi]

In my experience the metaphor of the eco system can be applied to every single tradition itself. There are two contrasting mindsets that arise towards any phenomena people who see it as fixed an inherent entity and those who see it as made of parts and causes. Every spirituality does say the same thing: there is an inconceivable - something - that we lose our ego into. It's important to note logic can always be used to support or deconstruct any position hence it is called a 'whore'. Reality is not a view point. If you have a view point you are necessarily in a conceptual framework and every spirituality says you need to transcend that.

[@BlueMoon-vh2sl]

Who is saying you are Buddhist ?

[@JessMichaelWillyard]

Sounds like Dr Thompson is not into the way Western people are trying to recontextualize Buddhism as a "science" removing essential parts. I would agree with that. I'm not into stripped down Buddhism. I'm prefer Buddhism as my teacher Gelek Rimpoche taught me.

[@hoale11]

Didn’t John Stuart Mill say we should not read the bible literally?

[@ezeeproproperties8352]

Have you tried to get Alan Wallace on?

[@volkerehlers7770]

Quote from Dr Thompson:"meditation is a practise like playing the gituar or performing a dance." Although many of his observations about elitism, wester & eastern cultural assumptions are useful and noteworthy it takes him a lot of words to say: my meditation never did anything to me." Very weak insight for someone that teaches philosophy. It is absolutely fine to not want to be a Buddhist - - but the critique is cultural - and not representing the unique perspective Buddhist philosophy offers. Emptiness? Suffering? Impermanence? Without an inclusive mythology - which Buddhism offers - materialistic science religion will keep wrecking the world - that is why I am a Buddhist. But thanks for the talk. And lots of respect for making the effort.😊

[@wanhoang5905]

Why you guys interview me, "I am a Buddhist monk"? ❤❤❤❤

[@margheritapagni]

It seems to me he has an axe to grind with Buddhism's modern evolution in the West. After all, the effects of Buddhist meditation have been studied in University and neuroscience research labs (the earliest, I think, were at Harvard University and UCLA in the 70's), hooking up expert meditators with machines that recorded how these meditators' brains performed. Clinical studies on Mindfulness (started by Jon Kabat Zinn) have scientifically demonstrated the benefits of meditation and its positive neuroplasticity. I don't know of any other religion or contemplative practice that can say as much. I see validity in some of his assertions aiming at not mythologizing Buddhism, but overall I am left with the feeling he is not giving credit where credit is due, and that he is often splitting hairs.

[@paldenngodup8238]

🕉🙏🙏🙏

[@johncubbidge2237]

I found little substance in the argument to justify an adult response, as most of his points refer to his childhood, not to Buddhism

[@tomtillman]

Very widely read Guest. However, He never said what he did choose, if anything. If you are reading this, Evan, What did you choose? Still undecided? Speculating, around and around about every possible facet of every possible path, is not likely to produce a tangible result. Could the problem be too much study and not enough practice? Is choosing no path the answer? I don't care what the academics, or the mainstream, or anybody thinks of Buddhism, or how they label it. Only whether a version of it works, and allows you to advance, or not. No matter what path you choose, there will be something wrong with it. Something stupid, unbelievable, political, untrue, unethical, or illogical. If you are looking for a path that is perfect in every way, dream on. That's because PEOPLE wrote the texts. People have biases, they misquote, they mistranslate, they misunderstand, and are prone to cultural influences. Is that a reason to not choose any path of advancement? Cheers.

[@Tomas33392]

I feel that because of his early experiences in childhood and his current sharing he is probably an eclectic, he takes what works for him and lives his life, without fully throwing himself into a specific religion or philosophy. Or maybe I'm wrong.

[@baizhanghuaihai2298]

Not wanting to incur some other culture’s baggage is a perfectly good reason not to align with a particular religious tradition. I think Thompson here does in fact admit to an ideology (openly acknowledging his own cultural baggage), as all intellectually honest people must do. His ideology, as he says a few times, is cosmopolitanism, which has a fairly particular meaning in the context of modern “western” philosophy. The practice of constantly examining and critiquing one’s own ideology does in fact have a long pedigree, one example being the Pyrrhonian skeptics, and of course there are others, such as the ancient Charvakas. The idea that one must resign ultimately to faith and praxis is simply a personal opinion emerging from personal experience, but it is not a valid argument for disregarding reason and critical analysis in favor or faith.

[@Tomas33392]

@@baizhanghuaihai2298 As someone who isn't versed in philosophy, that was very interesting, thanks!

[@baizhanghuaihai2298]

@@Tomas33392 Most welcome👍

[@FrogmortonHotchkiss]

If you can get an interview with Greg Goode, I think you'd find him interesting.

[@metta1773]

I recently listened to the Mind & Life podcast by Bob Thurman (titled ‘Wisdom is Bliss’)- it was really good. He talked about how only 1/6th of Buddhism is ‘religion’ and the rest is science (science of the mind). As I see it, even the part that is religion is about meaningful rituals - we shouldn’t forget that even in our daily lives we engage in rituals like shaking hands, doing specific things at weddings and funerals etc - so, we shouldn't criticize religions for having rituals.

[@allpointstoone4346]

I love meditation!. Thoughts and feelings can not be trusted, mostly distorted. But we need to use thought. Only know the method of meditation, discard all concepts and stories in your mind. I love meditation 🙂 I did find this talk interesting. Please don't complicate meditation and don't complicate life.🙂

[@davidmatta2727]

Very eclectic and adds to the confusion. There is danger in understanding half of Buddhism and mixing it with half of science. Buddhism is understood when practiced, not when intellectualized.

[@moodyonroody5313]

Thanks for this interview but I prefer Nichiren Buddhism chanting rather than meditation. Also, the concept of Boddhisatva is about helping others, so it need not be seen as individualistic. Chanting has a purpose of being constructive in the world. Can see how meditation may suit others but not me. Of course, chanting isn't unique to Buddhism but in Nichiren it's in context of the Tien Tai philosophy/psychology of the 10 worlds ['life states' in THIS life] as helpful for managing emotions and strengthening moral/purpose; with the thought of Buddha nature [ability to awaken compassion, wisdom and courage] as present within all human beings - similar to Quakerism. Unlike Dr Thompson, I don't think this type of awakening is the same at all as being 'saved' in Christianity which depends on faith in Jesus etc.] It doesnt have to be 'special' either. For myself, I choose to see/practice Nichiren Buddhism with the ideas of SGI as a humanistic practice/viewpoint [and do not personally accept reincarnation or tbh even understand the word 'spiritual' unless it now refers to practices/rituals which give ethical meaning in this one life in connection with others. Perhaps the 'modern Western person' finds it easier to say 'spiritual' than 'adhering to an ethical philosophy' - let alone 'religion' if they don't believe in God/s?]

[@whitecolour4390]

Some times all we see is faults, no matter where you look at.

[@williambentley2802]

Great discussion, and a critique of modern Buddhism that I broadly agree with.

[@Todd500]

Who said Buddhism is the best? Can you prove it? Embrace it or leave it.

[@glenanderson6153]

We can talk all day about the history and politics of various religions, but without a deep religious experience (awakening, mystical, enlightenment...whatever) it's "all straw" (as the late great Thomas Aquinas said of his own writings).

[@Royalroadtotheunc]

There's a similar Zen story of a monk named Tokusan (or Te Shan) who after having an awakening experience, burned all his scholarly notes and commentaries on Zen Buddhism, saying that all that accumulated knowledge was like a hair in vast space, or like a drop of water in an immense ocean.

[@NeoShaman]

You wrote a book, about awakening being an ideal, or a concept? Seriously? Obviously, you don't know what you are talking about. That would explain why you spent so much time on exceptionalism, trying to prove that there is nothing there. In Zen tradition, there is this nothion of great doubt, that is being used to break through the conceptual thinking. You took this doubt and structurised it into a justification of failure, in for of a book. It should be called "Why I failed at understanding Buddhism".

[@Lipinki.luzyckie]

Many buddhist teachers, ancient and modern, did the exact same arguments as Thompson did. Awekening is an ideal. As every other thing that you look forward to feel, to know or to attain, such as love, adulthood for children, whatever. And than it happens to you and is no longer an ideal but an actual experience. But you are always unable to translate any experience, enlightenment also, in such way, that person unfamiliar with this experience will understand it as it is. It's a story as old as world itself. And you didn't understand the critique. 'Exceptionalism' doesn't mean 'there is nothing here'. The Buddhism itself just doesn't has the answer. It's just a culture. Not only buddhists have this experience of enlightenment. To do what Buddha taught you gotta let the whole Buddhism thing go. But engaging in culture is what people do, so you could cultivate buddhism as a tradition, no problem. It's like this parable with the moon and its image on the surface of the lake, or the finger pointing to the moon. The image and the finger are not moon.

[@NeoShaman]

@@Lipinki.luzyckie Awakening is literally, an opposite of ideal. But this is knowledge for those that are capable of understanding. For the rest, for whom there is no hope in this life, ideals are good enough. There is a reason why direct teaching are mostly secret. For a mind that is not capable of letting go, awakening is terrifying and nihilistic notion. One should know that, before he publishes a book about it. Buddhism, as any other big religion, has aspects dedicated to all levels of society. Taking those parts, that are addressing simpleminded, and using them to define the core theaching, is a simple mistake.

[@Lipinki.luzyckie]

@@NeoShaman that's true, his critique absolutely deserve to be critiqued, and I think you got it kinda from the right angle. But still you have this patrimonial way of speaking, defined by some buddhist ideology, using the same concepts that the Thompson is sceptical about. Thompson's scepticism might be very precious for the serious practicioners and for the general public as well, exposed to buddhist-mindfullnes-modernist-propaganda - of course, only if used in a non-cynical manner.

[@mindfulmoments4956]

Hope his next book title would be "Why I am now a Buddhist," or "Why I failed at understanding Buddhism earlier"!

[@Todd500]

Mr Thompson misheard. Please be careful to choose your teacher.

[@LWT1331]

Actually it's science that's needs dusting off. It has become too rigid and materialistic. No way forward with that model.

[@hedfuka8608]

Unfortunately scientists have become the new Gurus...should we rename them lie-n-tists...😅😂🤣😁👍

[@mispanludensprinck5652]

There is nothing more mysterious and mystical than materialism. Matter is made up of some localized objects that we describe using Lie groups SU(n) and their algebras, which are some abstract mathematical objects that exist in our brain, which is in turn made up of those particles.

[@baizhanghuaihai2298]

I’d rather leave that kind of “dusting off” to the people who are better at math and physics than I am. If I can’t follow and explain the whole mathematics of a model, I really have no business pronouncing on it.

[@baizhanghuaihai2298]

@@hedfuka8608 Some people treat scientists that way, as gurus. But probably those people have the same mentality as those who treat actual gurus as gurus, basically people looking for an authority to tell them how things are, probably because they are desperate for either existential meaning, or for intellectual social status. At least with science the ideology itself includes the provision to falsify any claims…whereas religion…well..not so much.

[@hedfuka8608]

@@baizhanghuaihai2298 Not just some people...governments,media,universities...there is an entire agenda that pushes forward science and scientists as being beyond criticism,just as Barack Obama decided that we all had to agree on some "certain truths" regarding science,even though many would argue that there wasn't ANY truth in his "truths"..Science can be bought and altered...put in practice to harm humanity,whereas even if you treat a Guru as a Guru...what's the worst that can happen? Become a little butt hurt when you realise they are human and fallible...or maybe they are the real deal and help you realise the true nature. Either way,I would rather put my trust in the teachings of Buddha than Monsanto..😅😂🤣😁

[@johninman7545]

Ajan Bhram has an answer to this. No debate here. Non.

[@acornthea]

Can you say more?

[@kusali11]

I'm disappointed, always looking for good arguments posed by non-Buddhist, unfortunately nothing here of substance.

[@taidelek9994]

One of the weirdest perspective on a harmless Dhamma ( religion) to witness here , by the way the word religion is no way near to the true meaning of Dhamma . He seems to have a trouble with Bhudism but Bhudism don't.

[@TashiDelek1]

Unfortunately this guy failed to understand anything what Buddhas teaching is all about. This interview clearly shows that. Not a single time he mentioned something about what Buddha taught as a reason why he is not a Buddhist. Basically he talked about his experience with various people at various places that he found uncomfortable sort of speak.

[@owlnyc666]

The worldviews that "resonates" the most with me is Stocism and Secular Humanism. 😎😇🤔😉

[@owlnyc666]

Science and Philosophy Yes. Religion, not so much. When you criticize the "status quo" there is going to be consequences, backlash. This is common if not universal. Public Prosecutors Public Defenders.

[@TheGuiltsOfUs]

Surely the endless array of deities, guru devotion, as well as stories of former gurus being transported up to 'heavens' is a refutation in itself?

[@nyclee9133]

Did he do research on the dharma 😅

[@John_Smith0]

oh yes, because as we all know, universities are full of researchers eager to prove buddhism is scientific, all those brilliant young minds who really want to boost their academic careers... I wonder why they don’t get all the funding needed for this arduous journey into what their colleagues call “la la land”...

[@matthewrousseau2982]

It's just another religion. All talk

[@baizhanghuaihai2298]

Probably because the people doling out the dough realize that it is indeed “la la land”.

[@matthewrousseau2982]

I don't understand the la la land reference

[@toddm6999]

Umm you don't follow Buddhist Ethics as a layperson or Monk ...guess you are not a Buddhist...

[@baizhanghuaihai2298]

If one rejects the religious context of Buddhist ethics, then one would not see fit to follow that religious ideology, or indeed to call themself a Buddhist. Seems like a perfectly reasonable position to me. I do not believe the soteriological assertions of Buddhism, therefore I don’t care about following Buddhist ethics, and so I don’t call myself a Buddhist. Simple.

[@antireligious2574]

@@baizhanghuaihai2298 thank you! But for only you I am buddhist

[@toddm6999]

@@baizhanghuaihai2298 indeed it is simple

[@curtisnowitzky3344]

The divine …….? The Divine……..? The………..(d/D)ivine?

[@owlnyc666]

I agree that Buddhist Exceptionalism is harmful AND American Exceptionalism is Harmful.

[@bornHimalayan]

Buddhism is a science, you can not say its a mistake to bring science into Buddhism because science is Buddhism and Buddhism is science of mind. How can you make it apart. Off course you are not a Buddhist. Your religion shouldn't involve science in it. Just belief and superstition

[@owlnyc666]

Secular Buddhism Yes. Religious Buddhism NO! Buddhism A Religion? Or Buddhism A Philosophy? Or Both? The problem is there are so many.....variations of Buddhism. I have done some studying of Buddhism. Some of the doctrines I like and some I do not like. Then there are a person's personal experiences to consider. If you have bad experiences with in rivals or groups individuals then naturally you are going to be critical of the idealogy. Is the objection primarly cognitive or emotionational? I have watched numerous "Why I Am Not ______ videos. EVEN, believe it or not " Why I Am Not A Stoic.". And it has a very "Cosmopolitan" perspective. Then there is the difference between being a Non-Buddhist and an ANTI-Buddhist. And an ANTI____,??? Not to mention being indifferent to a persons worldview. 😇😎🤔

[@owlnyc666]

I think Buddhism arose I Protest, criticism of Hinduism. Buddhism is Protestant Hinduism.

[@gyurmethlodroe1774]

You are a buddhist...you just dont use that name

[@davidmatta2727]

Better. A Buddhist who does not feel like thanking the Buddha.

[@gyurmethlodroe1774]

@@davidmatta2727 it doesnt matter to him...he is the only prophet who said dont follow me in blind fairh😁

[@terefefeyssa877]

What does it have to do with Buddhism? S Those behave using Buddhism is Their personal problem. I disagree with Him.

[@PuggiTheGreat]

An academic trying his best to not be contradictory and incoherent. Listened to about two thirds and got bored.

[@korashortss]

Thank God, such a hopeless person is not a Bhuddhist 🤣🤣🤣

[@pennyjay9297]

Is Dr. Thompson gay?

[@JohnFlaherty-gy7dj]

Incredible intellect, no wisdom....

[@lobsangdhargya2853]

Dr Evan Thompson is clearly possessed and resentment towards to having knowing about Buddhism being the choosing one to be with science for working together to understand more and deeper that science couldn’t understand or get answer alone . I don’t think scientific community is miss understanding their expertise of what they are stands for and whom they embrace to be in addition to their experimentation and exploration of anything and everything in this universe. It’s good for science and Buddhist concepts of psychology ! Although he seems like study so many theology and spirituality he has issues of being the choosing one ☝️ of any kind or source from any civilization practice with so called science! I think it is rather serves more of self egocentric inferior and superior perception 😏 pretty disappointing for scholar to not able to contribute his knowledge for more open minted positive research institutions!