Real Buddhism scholar to "neural Buddhists": The Buddha does not infinitely morph and would never drop two g's for "meditation gear"

Columnist David Brooks, like Faith Popcorn and Douglas Coupland, has a knack for seizing and defining the cultural moment - think, for example, of his BoBos in Paradise. Sensing that materialism is a spent force (with the pop science media the very last to catch on, as we often chuckled in The Spiritual Brain), Broooks suggests "neural Buddhism" instead:

It goes somethng like this: Okay, okay, we admit that the mind isn't just the brain. We now know beyond all reasonable doubt that materialist explanations for mental phenomena are ridiculous. But how can we minimize the adjustment to our worldview?

Hmmm. That's somewhat like asking whether we can have an American Revolution and still mnimize the adjustment of our views of government.

But Brooks's first attempt to define our moment has started a very interesting discussion, which is being continued at The Immanent Frame, described as a blog on "secularism, religion, and the public sphere", produced by the Social Science Research Council.

Editorial assistant over at Immanent, Nathan Schneider draws my attention in particular to eminent Buddhism scholar Donald S. Lopez, Jr.'s critique, "The Buddha According to Brooks":

"This neural Buddhism may indeed lead to big cultural effects," writes Lopez. "But if it does, it will be important to remember how we got there, and what might have gotten lost along the way."

Lopez points out that what "neural Buddhists" mean by Buddhism is largely Western and modernist, comparable to the "historical Jesus" of post-Christian academics.

What would come to be called “original Buddhism” or “primitive Buddhism,” became the domain of European and, later, American and then Japanese scholars. They would create a Buddha and a Buddhism unknown in Asia, one that may never have existed there before the late nineteenth century. Just as there was a quest for the historical Jesus, there was a quest for the historical Buddha, and European Orientalists felt they found him. Like Jesus, the Buddha wrote nothing and, unlike Jesus, nothing that he said was written down until four centuries (rather than four decades) after his death. This Buddhism then became a model against which the various contemporary Buddhisms of Asia were measured, and were generally found to be lacking, not only by Europeans, but eventually by Buddhist elites in Asia as well.
The Buddha was transformed from a stone idol into a man of flesh and blood, a man very much of modern times.

And just think, a man who has precisely the current opinions, too. Anyway, Lopez explains further,

This is the Buddhism of Brooks and the Buddhism of the burgeoning business of Buddhism and neuroscience. Here, researchers who often identify themselves as Buddhists measure the effects of meditation techniques that are not unique to Buddhism. Their Buddhism bears the mystique of the infinitely morphable, the ever modern, the perfect alternative; we can be confident that whatever these neuroscientists discover will somehow be “Buddhist.”

I bet. After all, it's hardly well defined enough to be definitely not Buddhist.

Actually, I wish the neural Buddhists well. I am glad that they now realize that their minds are not electrified jellies.

However, I am also glad Dr. Lopez is setting the record straight about the thought traditions of Buddhism as it has really been known to countless millions of people for thousands of years.

See also:

"Materialists start to come to grips with global failure but materialism dies hard" (May 14, 2008)

"Neural Buddhists, Christians, and the Mud that failed" (May 23, 3008)

"Neural Buddhism: Do neurons get reincarnated?" (May 25, 2008) (No, actually, they get recycled.)

Note: the image is from "In the footsteps of the Buddha", Buddha Path

Neural Buddhism: Do neurons get reincarnated?

Everyone seems to be getting in on the act. Now Chuck Colson takes a whack at David Brooks's "neural Buddhism" (= the neuroscience wew are left with now that materialism has proven to be the Mud that failed).

Colson, a Christan evangelist, isn't at all happy with the Buddhism part:

The evidence from neuroscience is only part of the picture. While the mystical religious experiences and moral intuitions he writes about are shared by many religious traditions, there is no comparable evidence for Buddhism’s other claims: Its tenets about reincarnation and the illusory nature of physical existence cannot be substantiated.

The interesting thing, however, as Mario and I discussed in The Spiritual Brain, is that in 2005 materialist neuroscientists staged a big protest over the Dalai Lama giving a lecture at a neuroscience conference - because he believes in reincarnation.

We thought they were out of line for precisely the reason Colson gives: Neuroscience as a discipline can't really say anything meaningful about reincarnation. The Lama's belief that he is the reincarnation of the previous Lama is - from a neuroscience perspective - not researchable, so it is not a belief that should put him in conflict with neuroscientists.

Of course, the materialist objects to the belief because it implies some sort of survival beyond death - but that isn't about neuroscience either, it's about materialism. Fortunately, the protest was ignored and the lecture went ahead. Good thing because the Lama has been a stalwart supporter of neuroscience research.

"Neural Buddhists", Christians, and the Mud that failed

Recently we heard about "neural Buddhism" - basically, the BoBos (bohemian bourgeois) are coming to come to terms with the fact that neuroscience is not proving that there is no soul, as Tom Wolfe suggested.

Materialism is in fact "the Mud that failed."

So the BoBos now hope to get by on "neural Buddhism" - they won't be materialists but they won't be much of anything else either.

Ben Wiker's To the Source weighs in heavily, seeing neural Buddhism as an attack on Christianity:

Back to the “latest” in neuroscience. The important thing to understand is that if the discovery of “self-transcendence” in the brain is slightly more scientific than crude soul-crushing materialism, it is far more potent an enemy to true religion. Brooks understands this with admirable but not entire clarity. The lovely hand-holding of mysticism and science is “bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They’re going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day.”

Hmmmm. Why not plop a bit of ice in that brimstone, Ben?

First, it isn't Christians who should be insulted by this particular display of the BoBo genius for raising triviality to an art form, it's Buddhists! Real Buddhism is NOT about what you don't have to believe, think, say, or do. Real Buddhist monks get slaughtered fighting vicious tyrannies.

And a BoBo "neural Buddhist" does what? Buys a book on how to meditate under a blow dryer while surfing the Net?

Hey, prediction: Neural Buddhism will either grow up into Buddhism, get absorbed into Western theism, or dissipate before the next fad (rural nudism? feral foodism? Don't write to tell me. For truly momentous news like this I should wait for the New York Times).