There is no "I" in "You"

[The Grand Nudger]

@Rhythm

Google "Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy?" and you'll come across an endless succession of articles dealing with this as a serious question. Google "Is Christianity a religion or a philosophy?" and you'll mainly get skeptical websites which skewer anyone idiotic enough to claim that Christianity is a philosophy.

Such is the mystique of the east, and the priorities of familiarity.  The claim that buddhism is not a religion can -also- be skewered by skeptics (though you don't need to be a skeptic to skewer that claim)..and you can find that on the web too.  Cut english speaking skeptics that return on your google filter some slack...they're dealing with what they know, and what's close to them...first and most productively.  This is not informative as to the point you wish to support.  

There really is no equivalence between them.

There are a great many equivalences between them, which isn't to say that they are not -also- profoundly different.  This is to be expected, they are both attempts to explain man's place, man's condition, the nature of existence, etc.

Next. I asked you to give me an eastern philosophical tradition fond of cavorting with karma. You gave me Hinduism and Buddhism.

What I mean by a "philosophical tradition" is something like Nyaya or Madhyamaka. Something connected with intellectuals like Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, Dignaga, etc. Not very broad categories that apply to religion, philosophy, culture, art, etc.

I'm suggesting that what is true of the part may not be true of the whole.  Let's take your first pick - Nagarjuna.  Influential, in buddhist philosophy. That some portions of buddhist philosophy are more skeptical to you, by whatever metric you're using to determine that - does not make buddhism in the singular, or "eastern tradition" on the whole more skeptical than "western tradition".  I gave you Thales to show you that a western contemporary also proposed more skeptical viewpoints than some of his peers.  Both traditions have their moments and their mis-steps.

Finally, for the purposes of this discussion, I don't care about the origin of science other than to point out that it wasn't strictly a western project. If you're worried that I'm trying to credit it to Gautama, don't. All I'm saying is that his philosophical tradition is acknowledged to be one rooted in skepticism and empiricism, and that it came to dominate eastern thought.

No one claimed that it was a western project.  That's not all you -said-, or am I mistaken?  You said that the eastern tradition was more skeptical than western tradition.  Apparently, what you meant...is that one portion of one eastern tradition was more skeptical than, idk, some non skeptical example of a particular piece of western tradition. I;m sure you could find plenty of examples where I would agree with that entirely. I like cavarka, for that..for example. As to buddhism coming to dominate eastern thought, sure(ish)...but probably not how most people think it did, lol.  Is that supposed to be taken as being indicative of something?