"Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet, Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat; But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth, When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!" - Rudyard Kipling I am a Westerner and of this am I proud. Having no desire to sacrifice what it entails to be a Westerner, I nevertheless have always found some degree of interest in the East and her philosophies and religions. But is it possible to so accept the findings and views of the East, and yet still remain a Westerner? For indeed is there bountitful fruit to be found in Eastern viewpoints on many a thing, but can such be adopted mind of those not first baptised in the waters of that culture from birth or, perhaps, even by blood? There is some cultural connection betwixt the West and India to be certain, we having shared common ancestors and our languages descending from one source, but even then do thousands of years, almost utterly isolated from one another, separate the modern European and her offshoots in America and the rest of the world, from our Aryan ancestors which so populated both our lands. Even moreso then is this a problem in China, Japan, et cetera, for what cultural, ethnic, racial, or even linguistic conneciton can be found there? We in the West do, however, have somewhat of a foreign religion all ready (Christianity), it is true, but as soon as it was adopted was it altered from what can be construed as a purely Semitic religion, to one which is enfused with aspects of the Western spirit (Western philosophy, Western chivalry, Western scientific and economic principles) and which turned it from an alien religion to one which was, at least in part - and not enough, I am afraid - reflective of the Western spirit. This at least gives us some reason to suggest that the same could happen with some of the East, but still... So I ask this as an open question: Can a Westerner be a Westerner and be a Hindu? A Buddhist? A Taoist? A Confucian? Or must he sacrifice what it means to be a Westerner to do so? Moreover, how much can we blame culture and race and other such things, for the successes or failures of belief systems in other areas?
The world is shrinking. The exchange of ideas between cultures proceeds at an ever more rapid rate. It seems at the moment that some of the major Eastern countries, like China and Japan, are busy adopting Western ways, rather than vice versa. The spread of Islam throughout Europe, and to a lesser extent America, will probably serve as the vector for the transfer of Eastern culture. BTW, you're oversimplifying the world into "East" and "West." China, India, and Mesopotamia are the three (surviving) original civilizations. They developed independently for millennia before they began interacting and cross-pollinating. Europe's Greco-Roman civilization is in fact Mesopotamian civilization. Indian and Chinese philosophy may look similar to us, but not to the Indians and Chinese. The schism between Islam and Christianity effectively separated the Middle East from Europe and created a fourth "Eastern" civilization, in our nomenclature, but it has no more in common with India than China does.
Fraggle Rocker: Note for this entire post: Whenever I use the term Aryan, I am refering to it not with any racist connotations, but simply as the name that has been somewhat abused from its original meaning of "Indo-European". I prefer to use it because the term Indo-European is too cumbersome to use, and when refering to a people that really are the progenitors of the Celts, Germans, Greco-Romans, Persians, Indians, et cetera, it seems ridiculous to call them simply "Indo-European". "The world is shrinking. The exchange of ideas between cultures proceeds at an ever more rapid rate. It seems at the moment that some of the major Eastern countries, like China and Japan, are busy adopting Western ways, rather than vice versa." This is true, but one can also point to the fact that Japan, for instance, retains cultural practices peculiar to Japan. Japan is still very much a Shinto and Buddhist nation with much of the rituals, beliefs, et cetera, still a very strong part of even the modern, almost Atheistic, man. Similarly, I doubt that the influences of Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, et cetera, have really removed themselves from China. Recently, for instance, the Communist party has stopped villifying Confucius, but in fact have made him a hero again. "The spread of Islam throughout Europe, and to a lesser extent America, will probably serve as the vector for the transfer of Eastern culture." Though this will sound awefully triumphalist and perhaps borderline racist, but I shall say it anyway: The European man has been fighting the Turk, the Moor, and the Saracen for 1,500 years. To capitulate to his religion at this juncture, when we have driven his empires finally from our land, would be the ultimate case of pointless suicide. When Vlad the Impaler saw the Turks he saw an enemy that he knew he had to destroy, because they had come to impose upon Europe their domination. Even if not coming lead by jannisary slave warriors, I would say that, religiously and culturally speaking, the Turk remains an enemy, not because the Turks are evil or they come to destroy us as they had before, but rather that to adopt the Turk's way is to sacrifice the West for something else. In essence, to die. For if the West ceases to be the West, then what, pray tell, is it anymore? "BTW, you're oversimplifying the world into "East" and "West." China, India, and Mesopotamia are the three (surviving) original civilizations. They developed independently for millennia before they began interacting and cross-pollinating. Europe's Greco-Roman civilization is in fact Mesopotamian civilization. Indian and Chinese philosophy may look similar to us, but not to the Indians and Chinese." Pardon me? In what way is Greco-Roman civilization Mesopotamian? Greco-Roman civilization emerged in an entirely different area - the Western most extent of modern day Turkey and the Greek mainland and islands - out of an earlier culture that had its height during what we call the Trojan War. This culture had ties with other cultures which the Mesopatamians (as well as the central European Celts and Eastern European/Central Asian Scythians) but it was by no means a Mesopatamian culture. Moreover, I never said that China, India, and Mesopatamia were not original, only that there are true cultural ties to India, whereas there are none to Mesopatamia and China. The Indians and Europeans descend from one people - what we call the Aryans - as is evidenced by our language, our genes, our indigeneos religion, et cetera. "The schism between Islam and Christianity effectively separated the Middle East from Europe and created a fourth "Eastern" civilization, in our nomenclature, but it has no more in common with India than China does. " I would rather affirm that Europe was far more European before the adoption of Christianity and Christianity, in fact, drew the Middle-East closer to Europe than before. Whereas previously Europe, like India even to this day, retained her Aryan derived traditions, Christianity takes the beliefs of a non-Aryan people (the Jews, a branch of the Semitic family) and imposes upon them rather poorly upon European conceptions. So we end up getting this monster which, though it works now because it has been 2000 years since its adoption, we do not really have a connection with it. I would say that India is spiritually healthier because her traditions are homogenous to her native culture (although for a time, the Aryans were aliens to the land, like they were even in Europe and everywhere) than the West because of this, also. And to go back to one thing you said... "Indian and Chinese philosophy may look similar to us, but not to the Indians and Chinese." I never claimed that Indian and Chinese philosophy looks similar to ours. In fact, I think there are significant differences. Chinese philosophy is primarily ethical and political in nature, with little in the way of metaphysics (besides some Taoist notions), whereas Indian philosophy is overwhelmingly religious in nature - it is impossible to divorce it from Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism - with little on politics and basically only one system of ethics (non-violence). On the other hand, Western philosophy has always arisen in part in opposition to religion, cannot be equated with Christianity, and is strikingly metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political, et cetera. Moreover, even where there is some similarity, there is more difference.
I work with people across the world- East to West, and find much similarity, under the apparent differences on the surface.
If one considers a regular person from the East and the West, the apparent differences would be in their outward behaviours. I think these behaviours are the result of different conditioning from the different cultures they come from. As I said, my experience has been that the differences are superficial and the core is very similar. I think there is not much difference in people coming from liberal cultures, especially the ones that are society-oriented. I find much similarity in the value systems of people from UK, India and the far East. They all place family and society ahead of individual happiness; are team-oriented and value relationships. I think this is the outcome of culture they have been brought up. The superficial differences however exist in Indians/Hindus being more ritualistic in certain aspects, Far-Easterners being less communicative and the Westerners not always meaning what they say. This probably is because of the differing conditions- e.g., fewer people in Western countries allow certain respectful mannerisms in social situations, that will not be possible in more populated countries and cultures. Interestingly however, I find the Americans slightly different from the rest of the groups.
West turns in to East just as East into West. East and west are merely directions from where you are. If you view far enough west around the world, eventually it will be your east. Everything and everyone at your latitude is both of East and West. The point of this is simply to show that are all of the same grain. Though we may differ on the outside, our minds and souls all work the same.
I suppose this is one of those issues upon which "reasonable men disagree." But here's a partial list of the elements of civilization that were invented in Sumer/Mesopotamia/whatever, adopted by the Indo-European peoples before their diaspora, and then taken with them to their new homes: Writing, the wheel, mathematics, astonomy, the calendar, irrigation, metallurgy, beer, plumbing, formal laws. The Greeks and other Indo-European tribes did not reinvent these things. By the time the various Greek clans ended their migration and more or less settled down ca. 3000BCE, the civilizations of the Mideast had spread to the Levant where they were in constant commercial and cultural contact with the Greeks. The Greeks even borrowed the Phoenician alphabet after giving up on a non-phonetic writing system--which may have been indigenous but it ended up not being source material for Greek Civilization. The very concept of civilization--city building--itself was staring them in the face as inspiration from a short sea voyage away. The Greeks can hardly be credited for the brainstorm of saying, "Let's try building larger villages, out of stone," the way the Olmecs and Incas have to be. Still, they are credited with putting their own face on the Mesopotamian building blocks. Considering that scholars increasingly refer to "Islamic civilization" as a separate entity, there's nothing wrong with treating Greek civilization the same way. And having effectively driven the Christian empire from your land as well, emasculating and secularizing it even more effectively than we have over here, I hardly expect you to choose to start over with a religion that hasn't yet had its Reformation. I merely meant to suggest that the blending of Islamic culture--also in a highly secularized form--into what is becoming a European Melting Pot may inject some new motifs and keep Europe alive. Well I won't argue with that, except perhaps to restate it less politely. Anyone familiar with my postings knows that I consider evangelical, patriarchal monotheism to be a cancer epidemic that keeps metastasizing out of the Middle East at far too frequent intervals. The Greek/Roman pantheon was a beautiful model of the disparate components of the human spirit, as set forth a bit more clearly but less poetically by Jung. (It was also the Egyptian pantheon. Like all archetypes it is universal--still showing up in the casts of Shakespeare--and cannot be claimed by the Indo-Europeans or any other culture.) Nonetheless, the pathetic binary Abrahamic model seems to resonate with about half of the world's population, so we must have an instinct for it.
The Truth is the same everywhere; everyone strives for the Truth. All cultures have achived some idea or a part of the truth, and also some meaningless trivia. Remove the trivia and connect the dots, and you get a bigger chunk of truth. I'd also like to point out that almost all people who refuse to learn anything (to change), do so in fear of losing whatever grip they have on truth. Hence they keep every tradition and every sentence of their "holy word", and anything which doesn't fit without change, is ignored. And unless we start spouting some moral relativism ("There is no truth, just opinion"), we have to accept that anyone thinking diffrently knows something we do not. And something we must learn, or fall to ignorance. Even if it means risking everything we already know. I guess we just have to trust that we never forget the real truth. I have been said to be more buddhist than westerner, but my theology teacher did say that I uphold all the virtues of christianity. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (Which makes sense, I guess. Mr. C is cool) And hey, Buddha did say "rituals are meaningless", so go for it!
There certainly are bountiful truths to be found there, as indeed there are in many non eastern religions. Often though the religions become entwined in the social and cultural fabric of a society and these truths end up taking a back seat to ceremonies and rites of passage; to social functions and etiquette instead of the true practice and inner seekings of that religion. This is why to most of us westerners Christianity is often about quaint old churches, weddings, funerals and social religious functions such as Christmas and Easter where the motions are gone through with little real substance. Whereas Hinduism comes to us without any of these trappings. We can look solely at the spiritual heart of the religion without any of the social hindrances. To many Hindus in India though, religion is seen just the same as westerners view christianity and has become more about social conformity, about rites and ceremonies. In countries such as India and Korea many people adopt Christianity for the same reasons westerners adopt eastern religion; that they can break away from the social entrapments and practice a pure faith. I would also say that there of course many dedicated and serious Hindus in India and Christians in the west for whom the above is not the case… and also others who choose religion 'out of culture' for purely idealogical reasons.. Surely a truth is a truth whatever culture it is found in. If a universal truth cannot be applied across culture or language, of what value is it? So why is it necessary to have a linguistic or cultural connection to find truths in religion or philosophy? This is true, I do not know why Christianity , Judaism and Islam are considered western religions, for us (geographically) they are eastern in origin – or certainly middle eastern anyway. The only true western religions are the celtic / druidic religions and the shamanism of north and America and northern Europe. And it is not inevitable that these religions should have died out either, because both Toaism and Hinduism have developed from shamanistic religions. Try turning that question round and ask; can a hindu, buddhist or a sikh be a westerner? (i.e. living in west and integrated into western society) If you conclude they can then the reverse must apply. If they cannot where does that leave ‘western society’ bearing in mind that a significant percentage of the west is populated by those of eastern faiths? I think more often than not the failure of religions is due to social, political and cultural pressures and influence. That is why as soon as religion tries to organise it is doomed to failure - a pure spiritual practice must stay clear of these things.
I'm fairly certain that Mr. Fraggle meant that they may seem similar to each other in our eyes, but that they are extremely different from one another. Saying that the world is divided into essentialy "the West", and "the East", is a very simplistic, rather shortsighted and 19th century view of the world.
