Evan Thompson argues against Buddhist exceptionalism because he believes that presenting Buddhism as uniquely superior to other philosophical or spiritual traditions, especially when engaging with science, is both inaccurate and misleading. In his view, this kind of exceptionalism tends to distort both Buddhism and science, often by selectively emphasizing aspects of Buddhism that seem to align with modern scientific findings while downplaying or ignoring other aspects that do not fit this narrative.
Here are some of the main points behind his critique:
1. Overemphasis on Harmony with Science: Buddhist exceptionalism often highlights perceived parallels between Buddhist teachings and modern scientific ideas, particularly in fields like neuroscience, cognitive science, and quantum physics. Thompson argues that while there are some interesting overlaps (e.g., meditation practices and their effects on the brain), this focus risks oversimplifying or misrepresenting both Buddhism and science by creating an artificial alignment. He cautions against the selective cherry-picking of Buddhist teachings that seem to support scientific ideas while ignoring other metaphysical or cultural aspects that don’t fit the narrative.
2. Ignoring the Diversity of Buddhism: Thompson critiques the tendency to treat Buddhism as a monolithic tradition, which can obscure the diversity of thought within it. Buddhist exceptionalism often draws selectively from specific schools, such as Tibetan or Zen Buddhism, presenting these as representative of the entire tradition. Thompson emphasizes that Buddhism is a complex and varied tradition, with many different philosophical systems, practices, and metaphysical claims, not all of which align with modern scientific thinking.
3. Romanticizing or Misinterpreting Buddhist Concepts: Thompson believes that Buddhist exceptionalism can romanticize certain Buddhist concepts, such as non-self (anattā) or emptiness (śūnyatā), by interpreting them through a modern, often Western, lens. For example, the Buddhist concept of “non-self” is sometimes equated with ideas from cognitive science about the illusory nature of a permanent, unchanging self. However, Thompson argues that this interpretation can distort the original philosophical and cultural context of the Buddhist idea, which is much more nuanced and tied to ethical and soteriological goals.
4. Philosophical and Ethical Oversights: By focusing too heavily on Buddhist meditation and its scientific benefits (e.g., mindfulness), the ethical, metaphysical, and soteriological (concerning liberation) aspects of Buddhism are sometimes downplayed. For Thompson, this presents a shallow view of Buddhism, reducing it to a set of techniques rather than a deeply rooted philosophical and spiritual tradition with complex moral and existential dimensions.
5. Dialogue, Not Superiority: Thompson advocates for a genuine dialogue between Buddhism and science, where both are seen as distinct but mutually enriching traditions. He warns against a hierarchical view where one tradition is seen as superior to the other. Instead, he suggests that Buddhism and science can learn from each other, but this requires acknowledging the differences as well as the similarities between them.
In summary, Thompson argues against Buddhist exceptionalism because it tends to oversimplify both Buddhism and science, undermining a more nuanced understanding of the two. His approach advocates for a respectful and critical dialogue between Buddhism and modern thought, rather than positioning Buddhism as uniquely aligned with or superior to science.
