A rational religion...?

[Rum]

[FBM]

Any other "religions" willing to step up to that plate?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Notice that he doesn't say "If religion holds any tenets that can't be scientifically proved, religion would have to change." If he'd said that he'd be out looking for a job right now.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

Budhists have always been full of sh#t.

A religion designed for peasants.

[Pappa]

I know there are lots of different forms of Buddhism, but if you take a generic form of Buddhism to be the Buddha's teachings there's not really that much falsifiable stuff there, just karma, reincarnation and a system of thought/action to best navigate those. As those things are Buddhism's core, if they were proven wrong by science Buddhism wouldn't really have anything left. But anyway, they're pretty much in unfalsifiable.

[FBM]

I know there are lots of different forms of Buddhism, but if you take a generic form of Buddhism to be the Buddha's teachings there's not really that much falsifiable stuff there, just karma, reincarnation and a system of thought/action to best navigate those. As those things are Buddhism's core, if they were proven wrong by science Buddhism wouldn't really have anything left. But anyway, they're pretty much in unfalsifiable.

You may be conflating the Hindu versions of karma and reincarnation there. Most people do. Rebirth (Buddhist) isn't identical with reincarnation (Hindu), as there is no essential, unchanging Self/atman in Buddhism to be reincarnated in a future life. Also, Buddhist karma (kamma) is simply volitional action, not a metaphysical, cosmic law of nature, as the Hindus proposed. Buddhism takes most of the woo out of all that, but that's not widely recognized.

[Svartalf]

Budhists have always been full of sh#t.

A religion designed for peasants.

You mean just like hinduism and chretinity?

[Svartalf]

I know there are lots of different forms of Buddhism, but if you take a generic form of Buddhism to be the Buddha's teachings there's not really that much falsifiable stuff there, just karma, reincarnation and a system of thought/action to best navigate those. As those things are Buddhism's core, if they were proven wrong by science Buddhism wouldn't really have anything left. But anyway, they're pretty much in unfalsifiable.

You may be conflating the Hindu versions of karma and reincarnation there. Most people do. Rebirth (Buddhist) isn't identical with reincarnation (Hindu), as there is no essential, unchanging Self/atman in Buddhism to be reincarnated in a future life. Also, Buddhist karma (kamma) is simply volitional action, not a metaphysical, cosmic law of nature, as the Hindus proposed. Buddhism takes most of the woo out of all that, but that's not widely recognized.

Still, buddhism derives from a hindu environment, and predicates improvement/degradation of your future rebirths depending on your deeds in life, just as hindu karma does, does it not?

[Tero]

We need to turn Oprah into a religion. She's librul enough, understands and listens.

Maybe. I never watch it.

[cronus]

I was thinking OCD for a rational religion but perhaps only for those religious rational types?

[DaveDodo007]

Budhists have always been full of sh#t.

A religion designed for peasants.

Says Jesus.

[FBM]

I know there are lots of different forms of Buddhism, but if you take a generic form of Buddhism to be the Buddha's teachings there's not really that much falsifiable stuff there, just karma, reincarnation and a system of thought/action to best navigate those. As those things are Buddhism's core, if they were proven wrong by science Buddhism wouldn't really have anything left. But anyway, they're pretty much in unfalsifiable.

You may be conflating the Hindu versions of karma and reincarnation there. Most people do. Rebirth (Buddhist) isn't identical with reincarnation (Hindu), as there is no essential, unchanging Self/atman in Buddhism to be reincarnated in a future life. Also, Buddhist karma (kamma) is simply volitional action, not a metaphysical, cosmic law of nature, as the Hindus proposed. Buddhism takes most of the woo out of all that, but that's not widely recognized.

Still, buddhism derives from a hindu environment, and predicates improvement/degradation of your future rebirths depending on your deeds in life, just as hindu karma does, does it not?

Not really, no. The Buddha hijacked certain terms from his ideological environment and redefined them in ways that totally inverted and invalidated the original. Karma/kamma, for instance. The concept that the Buddha overturned was that one's effective soteriological actions were limited to the correct enactment of the religious rituals by individuals born to the brahmin class, regardless of one's character, intelligence or anything else. The Buddha turned this scheme on its head and redefined karma/kamma as 'volition.' That is, future phenomena depend on the skillfulness of the individual's moment-to-moment choices, not on class or rote repetition of sacrifices and chanting. And it is unrelated to class, as non-brahmins are just as capable as brahmins to develop this skill set.

Wrt future lives, the Buddha pointed out that an atman that might survive the breakup of this body is nowhere to be found. The individual becomes a passing perception of phenomena, rather than a discrete entity that abides intact through literal future lives. The Buddhist "future lives" are the arising of previously un-arisen phenomena, and what we take to be an individual human goes through countless such new arisings of phenomena in this very lifetime. That's what is meant by the Buddha's statement in the Rohitassa Sutta:

"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"within this fathom-long body," not in some future body or future life as a literalist would mean it.

That's not to say that the Buddha never referred to future lives; he did. But some of that can be taken to be a sign of his pedagogical skill (meeting the student where s/he is and prompting them to examine further) or metaphorically, since the only Self in Buddhism is a conventional, metaphorical one.

There is a great mound of woo-based sayings attributed to the Buddha that exist nowhere in the Pali Canon, the vast body of literature that scholars consider to be the most reliable source of information about what the historical Buddha (assuming he existed) actually said and did. That's not a claim that the Pali literature is either factual or uncorrupted; it's just the best we have. I'd recommend to anyone to be skeptical about anything you read in popular literature that claims to be said or done by the Buddha. There is plenty of room for skepticism about the Pali Canon itself, and the further you get from that source, the more woo people tack on. With a few exceptions, such as Richard Gombrich, Mark Siderits and a few others.

[Cormac]

I know there are lots of different forms of Buddhism, but if you take a generic form of Buddhism to be the Buddha's teachings there's not really that much falsifiable stuff there, just karma, reincarnation and a system of thought/action to best navigate those. As those things are Buddhism's core, if they were proven wrong by science Buddhism wouldn't really have anything left. But anyway, they're pretty much in unfalsifiable.

You may be conflating the Hindu versions of karma and reincarnation there. Most people do. Rebirth (Buddhist) isn't identical with reincarnation (Hindu), as there is no essential, unchanging Self/atman in Buddhism to be reincarnated in a future life. Also, Buddhist karma (kamma) is simply volitional action, not a metaphysical, cosmic law of nature, as the Hindus proposed. Buddhism takes most of the woo out of all that, but that's not widely recognized.

Still, buddhism derives from a hindu environment, and predicates improvement/degradation of your future rebirths depending on your deeds in life, just as hindu karma does, does it not?

Not really, no. The Buddha hijacked certain terms from his ideological environment and redefined them in ways that totally inverted and invalidated the original. Karma/kamma, for instance. The concept that the Buddha overturned was that one's effective soteriological actions were limited to the correct enactment of the religious rituals by individuals born to the brahmin class, regardless of one's character, intelligence or anything else. The Buddha turned this scheme on its head and redefined karma/kamma as 'volition.' That is, future phenomena depend on the skillfulness of the individual's moment-to-moment choices, not on class or rote repetition of sacrifices and chanting. And it is unrelated to class, as non-brahmins are just as capable as brahmins to develop this skill set.

Wrt future lives, the Buddha pointed out that an atman that might survive the breakup of this body is nowhere to be found. The individual becomes a passing perception of phenomena, rather than a discrete entity that abides intact through literal future lives. The Buddhist "future lives" are the arising of previously un-arisen phenomena, and what we take to be an individual human goes through countless such new arisings of phenomena in this very lifetime. That's what is meant by the Buddha's statement in the Rohitassa Sutta:

"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"within this fathom-long body," not in some future body or future life as a literalist would mean it.

That's not to say that the Buddha never referred to future lives; he did. But some of that can be taken to be a sign of his pedagogical skill (meeting the student where s/he is and prompting them to examine further) or metaphorically, since the only Self in Buddhism is a conventional, metaphorical one.

There is a great mound of woo-based sayings attributed to the Buddha that exist nowhere in the Pali Canon, the vast body of literature that scholars consider to be the most reliable source of information about what the historical Buddha (assuming he existed) actually said and did. That's not a claim that the Pali literature is either factual or uncorrupted; it's just the best we have. I'd recommend to anyone to be skeptical about anything you read in popular literature that claims to be said or done by the Buddha. There is plenty of room for skepticism about the Pali Canon itself, and the further you get from that source, the more woo people tack on. With a few exceptions, such as Richard Gombrich, Mark Siderits and a few others.

That quote seems to me to be extremely vague, and capable of being interpreted in any number of ways.

I wonder how it is that you arrive at such a definite interpretation.

On the face of it, your interpretation looks like cherrypicking to me. I am not trying to be rude.

I wonder how representative of the most common streams of Buddhism your interpretation is.

[amused]

I don't understand this assumption that because somebody who was apparently famous a long time ago, then what they have to say about how to live a human life, is inherently valuable.

[FBM]

That quote seems to me to be extremely vague, and capable of being interpreted in any number of ways.

I'm willing to listen to alternatives. I'm sure the one I tried to express isn't the only one.

I wonder how it is that you arrive at such a definite interpretation.

By reading the works of scholars of Buddhist philosophy such as Gombrich, Siderits, etc, and seeing how their ideas work in my own head.

On the face of it, your interpretation looks like cherrypicking to me. I am not trying to be rude.

I don't take it as rude. Just discussion and legitimate concerns. It would be cherrypicking if I were to ignore data to the contrary and stick to my statement despite having presented with contradictory information. As it stands, though, it's just presenting a single example from among many. If I were writing a research paper on it, I'd dig deeper, but as it is, I'm writing a paper on something else at the moment. I shouldn't even be posting on the forum, considering the deadline I'm facing.

I wonder how representative of the most common streams of Buddhism your interpretation is.

Like I said, popular Buddhism is chock full of woo. What I've said is in line with what the scholars I've mentioned (and more, but I can't remember their names at the moment) conclude, but I'm quite sure it's not something that the average layman would agree with.