@evantthompson just published his reply to @loveofallwisdom on the #IPhblog
http://indianphilosophyblog.org/2020/04/25/clarifying-why-i-am-not-a-buddhist-a-response-to-amod-lele-guest-post-by-evan-thompson/ 1/12

First point: "Lele advocates what he calls the “eudaimonistic strain” of Buddhist modernism, whereas I argue that Buddhist modernism in all its strains is philosophically unsound." This move necessitates some further explanation re. " #EudaimonisticBuddhism" (henceforth EB). 2/12

This "recast[s] Buddhism as a path for promoting human flourishing and ameliorating suffering. They don’t believe that consciousness survives […] death, […] reject the idea of rebirth, […] conceive of awakening as a psychological state of well-being rather than as nirvāṇa" 3/

Thompson does not mention it by name, but discusses it as "naturalistic #Buddhism", he says. He is sympathetic with its purposes re. human flourishing and ameliorating suffering and claims that Lele's is misinterpreting him as trying to "persuade anyone not to be a Buddhist" 4/12

(Personally, I read Thompson's book as not being about not being a Buddhist, but rather against Buddhist exceptionalism and in favour of the claim that science cannot settle philosophical ideas. But perhaps I'm so neutral because I don't have a horse in the race) 5/12

Thompson then goes on with his dialogue with Lele. Basically, he thinks that Lele is reinterpreting elements of Buddhism (e.g., karman) devoid of their original significance in order to make them relevant for EB. 6/12

This doesn't mean objecting to EB, but "I object especially to the Buddhist exceptionalist idea that Buddhism is somehow more suited to such a project than other religious or philosophical traditions." 7/12

The debate becomes really interesting when Thompson implicitly criticises some forms of EB (or any other modern reinterpretation of Buddhism): "unless one grapples with the radical philosophical and existential challenge that these propositions 8/12

[EF: 4 noble thruths,anitya,anātman,duḥkha…]
pose to our usual ways of thinking and being—especially to the modernist project of searching for well-being in the form of happiness and psychological well-adjustment—one hasn’t really heard what the Buddhist tradition has to say."9

Thompson then explains further how "human existence can’t be fully understood in terms of the descriptive concepts of empirical psychology" and Buddhism needs transcendence (which EB wants to avoid).10/12

The discussion then goes on about whether Buddhism in contemporary Asia is closer to EB (something Amod discussed in various posts in the past). Thompson seems to consider it odd to join a social and ethnic community in order to embrace its religion. 11/12

I am more interested in the general point about religion and science and how the latter cannot solve the problems of the former. 12/12