Western/secular Buddhism popularized in the west is generally not the same as Buddhism practiced in Buddhist countries. The actual Buddhist religion teachings can include, depending on the branch:

- Hell and heaven realms where you can get reincarnated into if you've lived an especially bad or good life

- Various gods and demons

- A timeline spanning trillions of years and hundreds of Buddhas

- "Celestial Buddhas" that came from space

- Enlightenment is now impossible in this world because it's too corrupt. If you chant enough, this or that Buddha will reincarnate you into their personal realm where you can become enlightened.

The majority of Buddhists in the world believe and teach these things. The modern secular western Buddhist community is sort of like a Theravada-lite in my opinion. Theravada already doesn't have a lot of the above, but they do have reincarnation, different realms, magic powers, etc. In the west the Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold Path are emphasized while chanting, ritual, etc. as well as supernatural beliefs are downplayed.

So when you say that Buddhism is rational and consistent, you're referring to a westernized version of it. In my opinion, what Siddhartha Gautama actually taught, or at least what early Buddhism seems to have been, is somewhat close to the pared-down westernized version of Buddhism, just in a Hindu context and belief system due to the time and location of the teachings. But this set of teachings is NOT the same as the religion of Buddhism as practiced by most Buddhists.

All that being said, something real is in the core teachings. You don't have to take anyone's word for it. You don't have to have faith in anything. Just learn to look inside, and see for yourself.

In addition, Buddhism monasticism in at least the first millennium and a half of its life was simultaneously cloistered off from the laypeople, but also very much of it - individual monks owned and invested property and so did the monasteries themselves. Buddhism did not glorify poverty for laypeople - instead the idea was to be wealthy and support the monastics. That's why Buddhism was so popular among merchants, who spread it from India into Afghanistan, and through the Silk Road on to China. (A sea route south-east was also taken at the same time.)

In first millennium China, Buddhist monasteries owned up to 20% of the country's land. Enormous tracts of forest were cut down to supply the wood to build monasteries, temples, towers, and more. Buddhist monasteries even owned slaves to work their lands.

For much of this period, certificates of Buddhist monk-hood were sold by the state or sub-state actors like dukes and princesses to quickly raise money. These certificates got one out of forced labor, which was often used to build Buddhist structures. (Forced labor was a common state inducement for all sorts of reasons in this time.) The explosion of "monks" led to crackdowns, stripping those who couldn't recite sutras or hadn't shaved their head of their privilege. Those with certificates were often exempt from certain taxes, though this privilege was only certain for those at imperial monasteries.

Sources:

"Buddhism in Chinese Society: An Economic History From the Fifth to the Tenth Centuries" By Jacques Gernet

"The Buddha's Footprint: An Environmental History of Asia" By Johan Elverskog

The same also happened with Daoism. The West took the philosophical part and ignored for many years the cultural aspects, belief system, and worshipping rituals (i.e., the religion) behind it. Until some scientists pointed out (quite recently actually, if I remember correctly) that you cannot just do that.

I don't know much about Daoism and Buddhism, but I know a guy who compliments people in the West who claim to be Daoists on their excellent Chinese. Most of them don't get the joke (it seems many important texts have never been translated).

Concerning Buddhism, don't certain sub-branches of Zen buddhism come quite close to the Western "no magic" version?

I am not super familiar with Zen, but my understanding is "yes, sort of". Zen come from Mahayana path and I believe it retains those teachings and cosmology, but it's not as central. Looking at it on Wikipedia, it looks like Zen is all about teaching enlightenment with very little importance placed on much else, so in that regard, yes.

Equally, the branch of Protestant Christianity commonly practiced in North America is pretty far from the Christianity practiced in the the Middle East, or Africa, or even big swathes of Europe. Disparate cultures often put their own spin on things, and it's no surprise the relatively rational-secular West put a rational-secular spin on Buddhism.

Indeed, it stretches the imagination to suggest that Jesus would even be welcome in many American churches... he provided free health care for sex workers, for crying out loud

> Hell and heaven realms where you can get reincarnated into if you've lived an especially bad or good life

The hells (there are many cold hot and cold hells) and heavens and other realms of the dharmaic cosmology are important metaphors making a lot of philosophical/psychological sense. You can easily tell where are you supposed to reincarnate if you are sufficiently self-aware. Once you practice enough you can become more or less free from the tendencies of your mind which are meant to put you there or there and this will improve your overall health, mood and productivity. You can even realize that you already are living in particular realm actually despite living in the same world everybody else is from the physical point of view.

> Enlightenment is now impossible in this world because it's too corrupt. If you chant enough, this or that Buddha will reincarnate you into their personal realm where you can become enlightened.

Also makes sense: it indeed is very hard (if at all possible) to become completely free from how your neural system is preconditioned to react to what happens around. And if you feel bad about this you better chant than panic or do unpleasant things other religions followers might believe they should to do.

Also, no matter how much mythology does Buddhism contain, that comes packed with very practical and objective goodies, readily available to everybody interested. Buddhists would teach you to maintain mental health and wouldn't label you a heretic if you ignore parts of the teachings or interpret them your own way (unless you start propagating your unorthodox views too aggressively). Isn't this nice?

In reading the pali cannon I was struck by how the society the buddha lived in seemed so tolerant of different religions and thought. he was a bramin, he was an ascetic, he was able to leave and join these groups freely without suffering any consequences, and it didn't seem like others particularly cared if he were a bramin or an ascetic or following the teachings of some other holy man. Everyone he studied under basically levels with him that they are on the same quest, looking for a decent philosophy to subscribe to, sampling the field in the process and trying different things, engaging in discussions with people of different ideas. It read almost like the situation in western countries today, where people might try out different churches or take classes covering different religions freely, without societal judgement, or even have no strong religious convictions at all. The teachings described are basically cognitive behavioral therapy, but framed in the philosophical language they were using back then which was theological. It almost reads like the budhha was a depressed person in existential crisis until he had his moment of enlightenment, and the other teachers and followers he met along the way were similarly depressed people looking for a treatment in a world where there wasn't one.

Plenty -- most? -- forms of Buddhism also have tons of mysticism, gods, reincarnation, and other stuff that would have to compete with Europe's other religious traditions.

What you're saying is sort of like reducing Christianity to "love thy neighbor" and wondering why that didn't catch on wherever people are nice.

I'm in a Buddhist country right now, and I really dig it, and I'm learning all kinds of awesome things about how people live -- but I'm not sure I'd say the locals are more rational than the Europeans. Nor would I say the Europeans are necessarily more rational than anybody else... maybe "performative rationalism" would be a good term?

As a child I had a subconscious assumption that Christianity wasn't rational, and maintained that view into my mid-twenties. Thankfully, I had the drive to do research on it, and an open enough mind to accept it, because I was ready to reject Christianity completely for a short period. I know this view isn't popular, but today, I see Christianity as the most rational philosophy/religion out there.

I think it's been wrongfully misconstrued as irrational by people who don't really understand the religion, inside and out.

Speaking as an Atheist, Christianity gets a very bad rap from popular culture and because of the fact that so many people in the west know about it's core tenets but they only have a casual understanding of the theology. And thus, it's much more readily criticized.

Could you explain what's rational about Christianity? Moreover, do you refer to a specific branch or Christianity as a whole?

On that subject the blog undivided looking touches on using applied history and theology to rationalize Christianity. It appeals to my sense of mrationality at least.

http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/

I took a look at that blog, but it doesn't seem historical at all to me (for example, I can't think of any historian that dates the synoptics to before 70 AD). I also can't say I'm a fan of the way he treats other denominations of Christianity as non-Christian religions.

For a good historical look at Christianity, I'd recommend people look into the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean podcast, the NT Pod podcast, or, for the old testament, the writings of Mark S. Smith (you can also find lectures of his on Youtube).

I would recommend that blog as well; it is among my favorite places on the internet. Aron's writings have had a huge and very positive impact in my life.

You don't need to know much about it. Christians believe in a god. That's open and shut right there.

Belief in a god in itself is not really that irrational.

Even secular thoughts like simulation theory agree in some sort of force that is outside of the material space-time universe we exist in.

I mean, these days, at least in Europe, quite a lot of people who identify as Christians _don't_, or certainly not a personal god.

I don't think the belief in creation by God requires any more leaps of faith than a belief in other cosmologies, such as the big bang, etc.

What do you mean by other cosmologies?

"Belief in creation by God" is not mutually exclusive with believing that the Big Bang model correctly describes the structure and evolution of the universe. Belief in creation by God is not another option among an array of cosmological models, since it is not even a scientific model.

Anyway, I'm trying to understand what you mean my there not being a difference in leaps of faith required…

"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. […] By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."

Perhaps there are scientists that depend on a certain model not being proven incorrect for their own research to be viable, then, they might hope for something that they do not see. If (<- not biconditional ;p) that model stands on a solid basis they might even have confidence and some assurance about its truth. Is this somewhat what you mean?

In any case, I don't think that believing that a certain cosmological model is correct requires someone to be confident with regards to it. The currently predominant model might not be 100% right and that's perfectly fine. Thus, "belief in other cosmologies" might not require one to have faith while the verse quoted above states that it is through faith that someone understands that God is behind the creation.

(Unless you want to say that confidence in the scientific method is required for belief in a scientific model, but then, confidence in history (or God!) might be required on the other side as well, and so on).

Then, at least 1 more leap of faith is required, wouldn't you say? I'm not sure, tbh. :-)

But then, faith being involved in a process is not necessarily wrong (nor necessarily good).

The big bang is a scientific hypothesis. You don't have to believe in it. You can accept it because it was proven, reject because it was disproven or suspend your judgement in between.

The Big Bang has physical evidence for its existence that you can personally verify.

Yes, but in practice who follows it to that level of detail?

From a layperson's point of view, are the astrophysicists that much different than a priestly caste?

I believe the physicists, but I don't think that by itself makes me a particularly rigorous thinker. In the ancient world I probably would have believed the priests, because it was what made sense to people.

And for better or for worse we have lots of evidence that people can reject science and still enjoy its benefits. It's not like refusing to believe in the Big Bang gets you blacklisted from using rockets or microchips, or rejecting evolution means you can't get vaccinated.

> From a layperson's point of view, are the astrophysicists that much different than a priestly caste?

I have yet to see an astrophysicists burn you on a cross because you don't "believe" in the big bang.

If I hypothesize that a blue Honda Civic was the origin of space, time and the known universe, physical evidence that blue Honda Civics exist does absolutely nothing to confirm or refute my hypothesis.

Christians have always been 1/3 scholar, 1/3 philosopher, and 1/3 priest.

The premise of Christianity is "revelation". That a higher power revealed knowledge to humans that is not knowable by any other means.

That there is revealed knowledge has meant that Christians spend much of their time thinking about and working out the implications of their revealed knowledge and trying to fit it into the rest of the world.

How rational you find Christianity depends on willing you are to accept it's premise. If you are then it is completely rational. If you aren't then it is nothing but castles built in the clouds.

What knowledge would that be? At least in these Catholicism-dominated parts, that knowledge seems to look something like "you better watch it because you're a sinner and might end up burning in hell, except that Jesus saved you because he loves you, but for some reason despite being saved you are still a sinner and might end up burning in hell". You kind of sound like that's not the premise you mean.

The whole "Catholic guilt" thing is of often pointed to as some whacky vehicle of control, which is a total mischaracterization of what that perspective is meant to do.

Many religions and philosophers understand the idea that humans are not basically good people. They are generally self centered and not sacrificial. So to say that Catholicism or Christianity is strange for placing emphasis on our "fallenness" is a little unfair IMHO.

The daily struggle of a Christian is to strive to rid one's self of their sinful desires (selfish / evil) and live as Christ commands. This a continual process, and one that cannot be stopped. If one just "gets tired" of being a Christian, and lives differently, then they are in danger of losing their salvation.

I only go into this detail to illustrate that there is more to "Catholic guilt" than a flippant "critique".

> The daily struggle of a Christian is to strive to rid one's self of their sinful desires (selfish / evil) and live as Christ commands. This a continual process, and one that cannot be stopped. If one just "gets tired" of being a Christian, and lives differently, then they are in danger of losing their salvation.

How is this not a vehicle of control? It steers you in the direction of behaving the way Christianity prescribes for fear of the ultimate bad consequence which is losing your salvation.

"Be nice to each other" is preached by every other world religion, as well as being at the center of many non-religious world views. The fact that we can and should be nice to each other to make the world a better place can hardly be what the grandparent meant by "knowledge to humans that is not knowable by any other means", which was what I was really asking about.

Thanks for your perspective. You're certainly selling it better than the Catholic Church is. (You won't be surprised to hear that I'm not buying into the whole thing either way.)

The roman branch of christianity (from which Roman Catholicism and protestantism arise) are hugely influenced by lawyers and roman law, which emphasises sinning and punishment a lot. If you are a sinner your priest is a parole officer.

The eastern christianity still recognises sin, but treats it more like a disease, the priest is more of a doctor.

I find this more appealing from a philosophical point of view, yet I lack any reason to believe.

> I think it's been wrongfully misconstrued as irrational by people who don't really understand the religion, inside and out.

You mean by 99.9% of the people. I have no doubt there is everything one may need to get enlightened in Christianity also but Christians have seemingly done amazing job obscuring that. And I can't recognize Christianity as rational because it requires you to just believe all the way through (in Buddhism as I know it believing is considered harmful, you are meant to experience it yourself and even then you are considered a fool if you start believing).

It is rational to say that creature won. It is not rational to worship it out of love, which Christians began doing. Whatever it is, it does not act in the interest of mankind.

Perhaps people experience cognitive dissonance when reconciling the things that you mentioned with beliefs about reincarnation?

I am relying on a rather common and uninformed understanding of Buddhism here, so I may be way off base.

EDIT: I had to look it up, but I guess European culture has contained some sort of belief in reincarnation (Plato's Republic, Book X / Myth of Er). I don't suppose this belief has much traction anymore, despite the strong influence of Plato (or Greek philosophy in general) on Christianity.

> Perhaps people experience cognitive dissonance when reconciling the things that you mentioned with beliefs about reincarnation?

Reincarnation was the only thing to come into my mind when I heard "buddhism" when I was a schoolboy. I had zero idea of what else is Buddhism about back then. Later, as I learnt more I found out (or came to an opinion) "reincarnation" itself is a fairly unimportant concept. Perhaps it is only there to attract/repel public and to be another target for becoming indifferent to as you progress.

It may also be beneficial to imagine you being reincarnated in a particular realm of existence and contemplating what you would experience. Imagine you are going to heaven where you are going to live millennia never forgetting... that you are going to hell after that, inevitably, like for real, and try to come in peace with that. That would be an exercise.

It's not reinkarnation. It's rebirth. Buddhism explicitly rejects the idea of a soul so reinkarnation would be very strange. Rebirth is something else that can be difficult to explain...

> consistent philosophical logic

Agree on the rest, but not sure about that. Buddhism is well known for inconsistencies.

https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...

I feel poetic inconsistencies/contradictions are the ancient world's equivalent of clickbait.

Have you been to Europe? Many countries there masquerade as the developed nations seen in Northwest and Central Europe, while actually unaffiliated countries around the world aspire to be seen as developed.

A lot of irrational things happen at the cultural and state level in Europe, with an iron thumb of redundancy keeping those silly states in check.

> Buddhism … is so rational … and explained with consistent philosophical logic.

Are you sure? Perhaps you ought to read about Sokushinbutsu[0].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokushinbutsu

I can recognize no problem in this. To me this seems a particularly rational way to die once you feel it's time to. Dying the traditionally western way - suddenly, following disability and sickness, seems way more scary.

A lot of secular buddhists tend to identify as humanists instead. It's a very popular saying: "Don't use buddhism to become a buddhist. Use buddhism to become a better whatever you are."

>Buddhism is such a minor religion

I guess there are group of people who believe in Buddhism as philosophy rather than religion. Although comparatively speaking still very minor.