Matt Custance

This somewhat spectacularly titled 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? And I’ve run out of space for more words!