There is no "I" in "You"

[Silver]

Oh, I'm loving Gemini.

[quip]

You know what the Buddhist said to to the hot dog vendor?
He said, "Make me one with everything."

...and when the Buddhist asked for change....?

[ApeNotKillApe]

You know what the Buddhist said to to the hot dog vendor?
He said, "Make me one with everything."

...and when the Buddhist asked for change....?

The vendor said, "Change comes from within."

[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?

[Whateverist]

I see the quipster hasn't given up his mission of elevating us beyond mere disbelief. Good to see a little humor emerging.

[Gemini]

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)...

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.  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...

The reason Buddhism came to dominate eastern philosophy is a very interesting question. The answer I would give is that it systematized aspects of the contemplative traditions that preceded it and replaced meditative practices that were focused on supernatural attainments with a meditative practice based on phenomenological observation (vipassana, literally, means "insight").

But anyway. If you insist that Buddhist philosophy can be skewered by skeptics, then prove it. Skewer it. Elucidate the absurdity of paticcasamuppada.

As for western philosophy having its share of skeptics, of course it does! It also has Aristotle hanging over it like an albatross, and eastern philosophy doesn't. For better or for worse, eastern philosophy has Nagarjuna. That alone should go a long way toward establishing eastern philosophical traditions as the more skeptical.

[The Grand Nudger]

The reason Buddhism came to dominate eastern philosophy is a very interesting question. The answer I would give is that it systematized aspects of the contemplative traditions that preceded it and replaced meditative practices that were focused on supernatural attainments with a meditative practice based on phenomenological observation (vipassana, literally, means "insight").

Still -ish- but, but I'd point to decidedly less academic circumstances and pressures to explain the dominance of buddhism/when where it dominated.  We'd be talking history, at that point, not philosophy.
(which is also what I'd point to to explain the persistence and dominance of many of the less skeptical branches of western philosophy - there's a surprising amount of similarity between the death of cavarkism in the eastern tradition and the hiatus of the more skeptical western traditions..in that both were suppressed, vociferously - by the adherants of a loosely aligned set of more culturally and politically powerful paradigms.)

But anyway. If you insist that Buddhist philosophy can be skewered by skeptics, then prove it. Skewer it. Elucidate the absurdity of paticcasamuppada.

I didn't insist that -at all-.....but of course it can be - que karma, again. I can bring up a handful of examples from buddhist philosophy alone..and we'll barely have scratched the surface of eastern philosophy and the many "less than skeptical" positions contained in a field much larger than the subset of buddhist traditions which you find acceptable for consideration would imply.......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_philosophy

As for western philosophy having its share of skeptics, of course it does! It also has Aristotle hanging over it like an albatross, and eastern philosophy doesn't. For better or for worse, eastern philosophy has Nagarjuna. That alone should go a long way toward establishing eastern philosophical traditions as the more skeptical.

Eastern philosophy also has those luminaries which gifted us with all of the non-skeptical aspects of eastern philosophy that you would separate from those aspects you feel are more skeptical. If you're going to continue to measure the size of each traditions skeptical peen, by reference to a single sub-division of the tradition, and even then only a specific set of that "buddhist philosophy but not the weird shit"..I'll eventually -have- to remind you that science and rational empiricism are also branches of western philosophy. Compare apples to apples....and you'll find that you'll have to constantly say "but not all the magical shit" in support of your position.... whereas I'll simply say "what magical shit?".

All you seem to be trying to establish is that western philosophy has/had it's crazies. Agreed. So does eastern philosophy, but when I bring it up you tell me that's not the eastern philosophy you're talking about. Counting the hits, ignoring the misses. Something tells me these metrics are hopelessly skewed. I get that you find some aspects of some eastern traditions more skeptical than some aspects of some western traditions. So do I. It's just an awfully grandiose leap from there to any comment about the overall skepticism of either tradition as a whole. I wouldn't go the other direction with it either, and claim that the western tradition is more skeptical than the eastern tradition -for all of the reasons I've mentioned to you.

There's nothing particularly skeptical about paticcasamuppada, you realize? Just an aside, not entirely relevant.

Paticca-samuppada, ( Pali: “dependent origination”) Sanskrit pratitya-samutpada, the chain, or law, of dependent origination, or the chain of causation—a fundamental concept of Buddhism describing the causes of suffering (dukkha; Sanskrit duhkha) and the course of events that lead a being through rebirth, old age, and death.)

....come again?
http://www.britannica.com/topic/paticca-samuppada

It doesn't stop there, though, reading through that elaboration there are more than just a few wtf moments for a skeptic. I'm guessing you weren't looking for any elucidation on the absurdity (or suprising -lack- of skepticism) on all of that. You have some other formulation in mind. Something with all of that scrubbed out, something closer to causal determinism in the western tradition, something more syncretic......yeah? -Just- as your formulation of anatta was the scrubbed, syncretic version. I'm neither surprised, nor criticizing you for preferring those versions. They are the versions sold to the western audience - for obvious reasons.

[Gemini]

All you seem to be trying to establish is that western philosophy has/had it's crazies.  Agreed.  So does eastern philosophy, but when I bring it up you tell me that's not the eastern philosophy you're talking about.  Counting the hits, ignoring the misses. Something tells me these metrics are hopelessly skewed...

Something with all of that scrubbed out, something closer to causal determinism in the western tradition, something more syncretic......yeah?  -Just- as your formulation of anatta was the scrubbed, syncretic version.  I'm neither surprised, nor criticizing you for preferring those versions.  They are the versions sold to the western audience - for obvious reasons.

I'm actually not interested in the fact that there have been nuts on both sides of the Euphrates to scribble down nonsense and call it philosophy. We both agree on that. What we keep coming back to is that I'm talking about eastern philosophical traditions and you keep talking about eastern religion. It's like objecting to the rationality of Democritus's atomism by citing  Zeus's shapeshifting philandering.

And my formulation of anatta isn't scrubbed. It's syncretic in that it integrates what we know about modern physics with the original doctrine, but to Nagarjuna it was exactly what I propounded: a refutation of substance theory informed by a commitment to skepticism. Likewise with paticcasamuppada. In its original formulation, even before the more sophisticated philosophical traditions arose, it was a formalization of phenomenological causal processes.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm actually not interested in the fact that there have been nuts on both sides of the Euphrates to scribble down nonsense and call it philosophy. We both agree on that. What we keep coming back to is that I'm talking about eastern philosophical traditions and you keep talking about eastern religion. It's like objecting to the rationality of Democritus's atomism by citing  Zeus's shapeshifting philandering.

Again you refer to some part while supporting claims to the whole.  I think that you've misread our conversation as grossly as you've misread the eastern tradition. I can only repeat myself. The eastern tradition is larger than your preferred subset, containing a great number of more and less skeptical bits than your favorite portion of your favorite portion.  The same is true of the western tradition.  

And my formulation of anatta isn't scrubbed. It's syncretic in that it integrates what we know about modern physics with the original doctrine, but to Nagarjuna it was exactly what I propounded: a refutation of substance theory informed by a commitment to skepticism. Likewise with paticcasamuppada. In its original formulation, even before the more sophisticated philosophical traditions arose, it was a formalization of phenomenological causal processes.

Your formulation of anatta was -absolutely- scrubbed.  No ghosts, therefore no self.  This is not your formulation of anatta.  I can understand, you're a skeptic..and it was bad logic anyway.  It is syncretic, and that's telling, in that you are now referring to western syncretisms of eastern traditions as though they demonstrated the skepticism of the eastern traditions...when they more informatively point to the influence of western tradition and the necessities of re-branding buddhism for a western audience. You have attempted to rebrand their philosophy yourself, so that it more closely comported with modern physics - a branch of the western tradition.  Allow, for a moment...that modern physics is -not- what those buddhists were discussing..at all, not even Nagarjuna. That they were attempting to explain all of those things you refuse to consider, all of the parts of the skeptical eastern tradition which you find less than skeptical, and so deride as something other than philosphy, in ignorance. All of those things -they- believed in, their axioms, their foundations. Just as classical greek philosophers were not, in their cases, discussing or opining upon modern physics when they referred to an atom or an element. Though it should be much easier for me to construct comments like your own..in that I won't even have to change their wording to make it sound as though they were.

It would not, even in the case that you did find a non-syncretic example (some of which I've pointed you to, in hindusim - derided as other than philosophy - apparently not what you're talking about), demonstrate your point on the relative skepticism of the larger traditions as a whole - because it can't-..that is an invalid means of inference on it's face, in addition to being plainly wrong by simple reference to the eastern tradition as a whole.  Am I not making myself clear?  Did the links provided to you regarding eastern philosophy not help to elucidate that point? Your scope is myopic, your view is uninformed and retrofitting, your means of inference non-existent, and your claim....extravagant. Why should I consider this to be any more or less thorough than the islamists claim to modern physics, or that the quran "more closely comports" with modern physics via reimaginings of the meaning of quranic verses?

[Gemini]

The eastern tradition is larger than your preferred subset, containing a great number of more and less skeptical bits than your favorite portion of your favorite portion.  The same is true of the western tradition.  

...

Your formulation of anatta was -absolutely- scrubbed.  No ghosts, therefore no self.  

What about this--if the question is whether eastern philosophical traditions are more rational than western traditions, I agree with you. They are not. My contention is that they are more skeptical. In the sense of not having much confidence in metaphysics.

Let's contrast this kind of skepticism with two philosophers that had no problems at all making claims about all sorts of metaphysics: Plato and Aristotle. 

If you didn't know, these aren't just a couple of random dudes out of the panoply of western philosophers. We're talking about the guy who for two thousand years was The Philosopher. And his teacher. If you know anything about western philosophy, you know what a huge impact Aristotle had on it.

Now let's take Nagarjuna. Ask him about whether we can know stuff about metaphysics, and he's all, "No...just, no."

And like Aristotle, he's not just some random dude out of the panoply of eastern philosophers. He's fucking Nagarjuna. In the same way that, when you're reading western philosophy, you know everyone is familiar with Aristotle, when you're reading eastern philosophy, you know everyone is familiar with Nagarjuna. 

And they don't want to sound like the kind of "fools and reificationists" he humiliated in the Mulamadhyamaka-karika. So you tend to get a little more skeptical action going on.

But anyway. To give you an example of how anatta relates to physics, a while ago I was watching a conversation between Robert Wright and Lawrence Kraus, about the Higgs boson. And how it explains why electrons have mass. Wright stated that it wouldn't have occurred to him to think that there ought to be an explanation for something like that--he would have just accepted mass as a brute fact about electrons. A property they have which has no explanation.

What he was presupposing is metaphysics. That electrons have "own-nature," or svabhava, as the ancient Indians called it. Read some Nagarjuna and you'll see him critiquing this concept within an unexceptionally non-ghosty intellectual framework.