The Philosophic Buddha

I’ll admit it: I am not a fan of Buddhism. I know this doesn’t sound good—like confessing to contempt for puppies or to harbouring doubts about human kindness. But it’s best to be plain-spoken. Reader, consider yourself warned.

What bothers me is a particular nexus of ideas: the “no-self” view in Buddhist metaphysics and its implications for ethical life. I’ve expressed my reservations more than once, in passing, first in Midlife, then in Life is Hard. But I was too dismissive. You can’t refute a tradition that goes back 2500 years in a couple of quick sentences. You need at least 71.

What makes my critique obnoxious is that, despite having read a fair few books about Buddhism, I am not an expert in the field. Instead, I rely on scholars like Donald S. Lopez, whose lectures on The Scientific Buddha are a source of seditious joy. Lopez studiously mocks contemporary claims to reconcile Buddhist philosophy with cutting-edge science, tracing their tendency back to Victorians like William Er…