I'm surprised this piece is written by a professor of philosophy. The author seemingly misunderstands Buddhism. For starters there is the whole Mahayana tradition of Buddhism which is fundamentally defined by the striving for and embodiment of infinite compassion for all things. How can that be accused of having no feeling and shutting oneself off from the world?
To counter this the author simply argues that those who feel this way aren't really living as Buddhists! Seriously? He then goes on to claim that basically anything that negates his argument isn't "official" Buddhism! What credentials does he have to be the authority on what constitutes "official" Buddhist doctrine?
The author seems to mistake the idea* of realising the nature of reality for an inability to feel anything. This is not the case. Furthermore, the crux of his argument seems to be that we should all for some reason actually want to remain blind to the true nature of reality and continue to feel suffering and pain. Why is that? He gives no actual reason other than "shouldn't we want the death of a child to shatter us?"
There is a story attributed to Jainism but is also often found in Buddhist teachings about a man who is chased by an elephant and falls into a well. It captures pretty much perfectly the misunderstanding of the author. We are so caught up searching for sense gratification, whether the enjoyment of pleasurable things or the suffering that comes from the loss of a child, we are blind to our true situation. For those interested a version can be found here.......
http://jains.australians.com/taliteputha.htm*I'm not arguing for or against the idea, merely pointing out that the author seems to misunderstand the central tenet of Buddhism.
