A claim made by Buddhist or Buddhism-affine scholars such as Michael LaTorra and James Hughes is that transhumanism, neuroscience, and the teachings of Buddhism are compatible because they aim to alleviate suffering and pain and attain a stable state of happiness. This claim can be challenged. At first glance, the approach seems valid, because since the 1980s there have been dialogues and scientific collaborations with representatives of Tibetan Buddhism and scientists on the topics of neuroscience, consciousness, ethics and technology, and in this context new interpretations of Buddhist thought have emerged such as ‘Buddhist modernism’ (E. Thompson). In this discussion note, however, two main arguments are advanced as to why the claim and terminology of Buddhist transhumanism are difficult to reconcile with Buddhist terminology, values, and methods: (1) the difference between the use of such methods as meditation and contemplation and the application of so-called human enhancement technologies (2) and differences concerning self-understanding in Western science and Buddhism.

迈克尔·拉托拉（Michael LaTorra）和詹姆斯·休斯（James Hughes）等佛教或佛教相关学者声称，超人类主义、神经科学和佛教教义是兼容的，因为它们的目的是减轻痛苦和痛苦并获得稳定的幸福状态。这一说法可能会受到质疑。乍一看，这种方法似乎是有效的，因为自 20 世纪 80 年代以来，藏传佛教代表和科学家就神经科学、意识、伦理和技术等主题进行了对话和科学合作，在这种背景下，出现了对佛教思想的新解释例如“佛教现代主义”（E. Thompson）。然而，在这篇讨论笔记中，对于为什么佛教超人类主义的主张和术语难以与佛教术语、价值观和方法相一致，提出了两个主要论点：（1）冥想和沉思等方法的使用之间的区别以及所谓人类增强技术的应用（2）以及西方科学和佛教中关于自我理解的差异。