Why do humanists attack cartoons of Buddhism? Humanists who in their right mind wouldn't dare assault such a cartoon of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or even Christianity? The answer is simple: it's called Buddhaphobia and it's the subject of my new book.

The key resides in the very notion of a cartoon.

We all know why Hitchens, Dawkins et al. would attack Buddhism as they attack other forms of religion. (Though Sam Harris reserves a place for it, because of his actual contact with actual Buddhism.) But why on Earth would a humanist, trained to be suspicious of her or his prejudices, do to Buddhism what she or he wouldn't dare do to another religion, for fear of offending the other and provoking violence? Assaulting a cartoon of Buddhism, on the other hand, is seen as like assaulting Mr. Spock: he's not supposed to answer back.

Buddhaphobia, like homophobia, is the fascination with and fear of something that is already profoundly, intimately “in your face.” Something unconditional. Something that's just there. It's the fear of an open-ended subjectivity, if you like, or if you don't like, an object-like entity that withdraws from access. In psychoanalysis it's called narcissism. And you need it to have good relationships with yourself and with others.

The ultimate refuge of the narcissistic personality—that is, someone whose narcissism is wounded—is the accusation that the other is narcissistic. Like the person who says “I don't like bullies” and then proceeds to bully you, the wounded narcissist is obsessed with pointing out the other's narcissism.

A fundamentalist recently told my Lutheran pastor sister in law that Buddhism was “self-centered” while Christianity was “Christ-centered.” I rest my case. Hegel's nightmare of Buddhism is a statue of a baby sucking its toe. (Actually this is a Hindu image, but he was so blinded by his obsession with A=A or the narcissism of the other that I guess he didn't check.)

What this adds up to is the usual orientalist racism that “Asians” are “inscrutable.” How dare those Buddha statues not look at me directly? How dare they turn their eyes downward, as if inward? Are they secretly conspiring against me? Are they faceless, desireless automata? Buddha statues are evil insofar as they are passive. Like Bartleby.

Funny isn't it, this ire against statues. Like the Taliban assault on the Buddhas of Bamiyan. (Endorsed by Zizek, btw—along the lines of “At least the Muslims were sticking up for their beliefs!”) I think these assaults are profoundly symptomatic of Buddhaphobia.

As Slavoj Zizek argues in The Sublime Object of Ideology, the sadist reduces the other to a malleable, faceless cartoon he can beat up without consequences. Like a statue. Statues can't show offence.

Takes one to know one Slavoj!

At least Lacan has the good grace to see the Buddha statue as an invitation, a kind of “Kinsey Report” on gender and identity...(to be continued).

The reason for Buddhaphobia, then, is much more simple, more “lame” than sophisticated nihilism believes of itself. After all, nihilism believes that it is beyond belief. Nihilism wouldn't dare attack Islam, because that would be uncool, like wearing unfashionable clothes.

The reason is the intimacy Derrida talks about in “There Is No One Narcissism.” Derrida argues that narcissism can be more or less extended. Buddhism argues that maitri or metta begins with oneself. From there you can extend it to all sentient beings. What psychoanalysis calls narcissism is a baby version of metta.

Afraid not of absence but of presence, Buddhaphobia disguises this intimacy as nothingness, in a compulsive repetition of the Hegelian-Schopenhauerian canard about abandoning one's desires to the void. Zizek finds the void exciting when it's not a Buddhist void. What's he afraid of? Vulnerablity and intimacy. The void is a decoy to take your attention away from the real phobic object—vulnerability and warmth.

Oh, if you want to discuss Buddhism, first read What Makes You Not a Buddhist. It's short and enormously clarifying. It's by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche, a target of Zizek's wrath in one or two places. I know for sure that Zizek's idea that Rinpoche endorses capitalist ideology would make him scream with laughter, as does the phrase “Dick Cheney.”