Evan Thompson

2023-07-31: It not that he's not a Buddhist, he just can't find a Buddhist tribe that he likes and he's limited his thinking to believing that he can't be a buddhist without belonging to any of the Buddhist tribes. I got that from the intro, I don't know that I'll go any further as it feels like he going argue pedantically for the rest of the book about why the various buddhist tribes are wrong. I don't disagree and yet I identify as a buddhist in that there's a bunch of very useful philosophy attributed to a, possibly apocryphal, person named Buddha and I try to get as much as I can from that very useful philosophy.… (altro)

Really liked the book, although it wasn't always easy to read and I'm sure 10% of it whooshed right past me. Great mixture of Eastern religion/philosophy mixed with Western neuroscience and psychology. I really liked the discussions of normal waking consciousness compared to other forms of consciousness such as dreams or meditation. Good (not 100% positive) review in the NYT made me want to read this: rel="nofollow" target="_top">http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/books/review/evan-thompsons-waking-dreaming-be...… (altro)

Although this not an easy book to read, I found it thought-provoking and well-written. Perhaps this is only because I had been thinking about some of the issues raised in the book and the vague descriptions of enlightment, the role of criticsm vs. authority, karma, the nature of mindfulness, . . . that appears in Buddhist literature. I do think the book could have had a more descriptive title,for instance: "A critique of Buddhist modernism and erroneous conflation of neuroscience and Buddhism," or something on that order. The book is not a diatribe against Buddhism and does not parallel Russell's "Why I am not a Christain." I found both his discussion of neuroscience and Buddhist doctrines, dare I say it, enlightening. It is not the easiest book I've ever read, but far from the hardest. I had to read a few chapters a couple of times. The first time to get the broad scope of the argument and a second to follow the details in the construction of the argument. The second reading was generally worth it.

The book is not hostile to Buddhism. He does make a good case for Buddhism being a religon that cannot be substantiated by neuroscience. He also spends a good deal of time on the concept of "mind" and presents the thesis that the brain state, as studied in neuroscience, is only one component of the mind.

I would (and have) recommended the book to readers already familiar with a smattering of Buddhist literature or interested in the prospects of a secular Buddhism. The author raises a variety of interesting questions that I found to be worth thinking about. (No answers yet.)… (altro)