more on "Neural Buddhists"

Andrew Sullivan (one of my daily reads) first drew my attention to Brooks' NYT . To be completely honest, I generally find David Brooks pretty aggravating, but I have read with interest his columns of the last several weeks. What I enjoy about Sullivan's blog is his rather effortless kindness and the way that his Catholicism, conservatism, Englishness and open homosexuality all contribute to the impression of a truly open mind.
This is a letter sent to the blog regarding Sullivan's comments on Brooks' column:

As a fan and Buddhist, a couple of points seem relevant regarding your "Neural Buddhists" post. When you write, "Deus Caritas Est. Buddhists intuit this, which is why the overlaps between Buddhism and Christianity have been so compelling to many in recent years," you do some transposing. As I'm sure you know, Buddhists don't have a position on god. (Deus being a poetic construction on your part.) But more to the point, the word "love" here is theologically problematic. Buddhists hold that the fundamental mistake un-enlightened beings make is mistaking the nature of self and other. Without delving too deeply into it, the "love" you suggest is characterized as compassion and generosity in Buddhism because these are impulses not polluted by the intention to reify the self. It's not a moral code, though. (Much, much more could be said.)

The second point is a critical one for understanding Buddhism.

For people coming from a Christian civilization, we often fail to recognize our basic assumptions. In the US and Europe, we assume that belief and religion are identical. When you ask a person about their religious views, you say "What do you believe?" This is a peculiarly Judeo-Christian view. Indian-based religions don't have an orientation to belief. Buddhism's focus is on meditative practice, which imparts non-conceptual insight; more or less the opposite of belief. In fact, the central obstacle to overcome in Buddhism is a belief, and so the religion regards belief with some big suspicion.

In your post, you spoke of belief and love. Recognize that you are speaking as a Christian, not a Buddhist, and that the view from this side of the window is a lot different. (Not incompatible, but different.)

Here Andrew comments:

All points taken. I had a Buddhist phase in my twenties and found the question of the self and other an insuperable problem. Now I'm less sure.