Do We Need the Wisdom of the East ?

sowhatifit'sdark said:
Perhaps the difference betweent these 'Western' examples and the 'Eastern tendencies' is that the former still fall in love with metaphors as containers, even in they have several and always 'in process' and the latter don't want you to settle on the metaphors and get entangled with them.
Click to expand...

I think the major different between 'West' and 'East' is this:

As far as Buddhism is concerned, (right) thinking is done and used as a means to an end, namely the cessation of suffering. Something which is of personal relevance and recognition to the person themselves.

The 'Western' direction and use of thinking seem to be almost entirely self-referential, with little or no relevance for the person employing the thinking. 'Serving a higher purpose which is beyond the individual person' seems to be the motto.
 
This has been touched upon earlier in the thread. I'm not sure where exactly, but there was an elaboration on it.
 
greenberg said:
I think the major different between 'West' and 'East' is this:

As far as Buddhism is concerned, (right) thinking is done and used as a means to an end, namely the cessation of suffering. Something which is of personal relevance and recognition to the person themselves.

The 'Western' direction and use of thinking seem to be almost entirely self-referential, with little or no relevance for the person employing the thinking. 'Serving a higher purpose which is beyond the individual person' seems to be the motto.
Click to expand...

Speaking of irony...

But then there is much mention of compassion and right relation, if memory serves me, also in Buddhism.

I do like the reversal of the cliche 'selfish individualistic Westerners' in your analysis as actually lured into disvaluing themselves. I am not sure it holds or is complete.

But in relation to 'truth' I think there is definitely something in what you say. One aligns with 'the truth' - text, expert. You sort of hook your caravan up to it and follow it down the road. Whereas in Buddhism there is no car to hook up to. In fact you are repeatedly dehooked from a variety of cars.
 
sniffy said:
Where is the line between 'East' and 'West' drawn?
Click to expand...
Generally above the Equator and below the northernmost Himalayas. But probably West of them.

I think that answer is correct, in terms of usage - and appropriately vague - and so silly it approaches sin, a concept I have little use for usually.
 
greenberg said:
Yes - hence the title of the book: when I say no, I feel guilty.
Click to expand...
Silly me.


I wonder how much of the guilt (and other feelings of discomfort related to it) we feel is genuine. I am inclined to think that guilt is tends to be one of the things we simply pick up, learn; so everytime we feel guilty, it is not necessarily genuine guilt.
Click to expand...

I think genuine guilt would be regret and remorse. Guilt to me always denotes a mixed state:
I must be bad but it felt right.
Click to expand...

The rule shows I failed morally and yet how could I have acted otherwise?
Click to expand...

The self turns back on the self with a hammer.

Which is not so with remorse where it is not so much about yourself but about the other - even if the other is the self.

Guilt would be an excellent topic for a thread.
 
and esoterism for this thread
perhaps a clue if valid
east and west meet in this thing called a homo sapien

what does esoterism mean to you
 
sowhatifit'sdark said:
But then there is much mention of compassion and right relation, if memory serves me, also in Buddhism.
Click to expand...

Yes - and it is emphasized that compassion be applied wisely.
There is even the term 'idiot compassion' to denote the compassion of people who are unwisely compassionate.


I do like the reversal of the cliche 'selfish individualistic Westerners' in your analysis as actually lured into disvaluing themselves. I am not sure it holds or is complete.
Click to expand...

My 'analysis' is certainly provocative, and I know many who disagree with it.

But 'Western' ideals about individuality -so highly praised- have always given me the creeps. Because what is it that is truly 'I' or 'mine'? All those things that supposedly make up one's 'individuality' - can they really be said to be 'I' or 'mine'? Is there anything that I have or am, that is not inherited, borrowed, bought, stolen, given, or somehow acquired? I can see no such thing. Perhaps some other people have such things.

'Western' ideals about individuality expect me to identify with things that are not I or mine. They expect me to claim something to be I or mine that I know cannot possibly be I or mine.
 
greenberg said:
Yes - and it is emphasized that compassion be applied wisely.
There is even the term 'idiot compassion' to denote the compassion of people who are unwisely compassionate.
Click to expand...
Which fits with some of the points we both made earlier. I brought up compassion because it is aimed at another being, for their good, and your own, or so I always took it, not simply your own.



My 'analysis' is certainly provocative, and I know many who disagree with it.
Click to expand...
Well, it's interesting. Buddhism as selfish and Westernism as in this way selfless: it is demanded that you follow certain external authorities - often experts - and try to make your experience fit their 'truths'. Also to move from experience into abstraction and rest there. And if anything is 'not self' it is abstraction.

Whereas in Buddhism the direction is reversed.

But 'Western' ideals about individuality -so highly praised- have always given me the creeps. Because what is it that is truly 'I' or 'mine'? All those things that supposedly make up one's 'individuality' - can they really be said to be 'I' or 'mine'? Is there anything that I have or am, that is not inherited, borrowed, bought, stolen, given, or somehow acquired? I can see no such thing. Perhaps some other people have such things.
Click to expand...

I have taken individualism as more related to what I do and how I express myself. I can see one making a case that these verbs, so to speak, are also ones I have inherited, borrowed, bought, stolen, given, or somehow acquired and the styles in which I do these - 'my' adverbs - are also inherited, borrowed, bought, stolen, given, or somehow acquired. But then I am not sure that is true. I think those are layered over something more essential. Or are filters for it. Limits, impositions, masks. But that's the non-Buddhist in me. I could make a case either way.

'Western' ideals about individuality expect me to identify with things that are not I or mine. They expect me to claim something to be I or mine that I know cannot possibly be I or mine.
Click to expand...

What did you mean here?
 
sowhatifit'sdark said:
Buddhism as selfish and Westernism as in this way selfless: it is demanded that you follow certain external authorities - often experts - and try to make your experience fit their 'truths'.
Click to expand...

Yes. I am getting intensely emotionally invested here - What I have always hated about 'Westernism' is this having to bow to some external authority, always this someone or something else being more important than me.
"I should give up my own happiness so that my neighbor can be happy." But my neighbors wouldn't do that for me!


Also to move from experience into abstraction and rest there. And if anything is 'not self' it is abstraction.
Click to expand...

The part I bolded - I don't know about this.
I agree that in 'Westernism', abstraction is praised. But I don't understand what you mean 'And if anything is 'not self' it is abstraction'?


'Western' ideals about individuality expect me to identify with things that are not I or mine. They expect me to claim something to be I or mine that I know cannot possibly be I or mine.
Click to expand...

What did you mean here?
Click to expand...

'I' or 'mine' as in: my work, my poem, my book, my painting, my house, my illness, my health, my words, my thoughts; I the intellectual, I the peasant, I the good person, I the bad person, I the stupid person, I the weakling, I the hero, I the amassing of matter, I the soul - and so on.

Colloquially, these identifications are of course usually true.
But strictly speaking, they are not; they are true only conditionally on time and various other circumstances. Yet 'Westernism', as I experience it, expects me to identify with some things unconditionally, regardless of circumstance; moreover, it expects me to accept the identifications that other people assign to me, especially if it is people of a 'higher rank' than mine.
 
greenberg said:
Yes. I am getting intensely emotionally invested here - What I have always hated about 'Westernism' is this having to bow to some external authority, always this someone or something else being more important than me.
"I should give up my own happiness so that my neighbor can be happy." But my neighbors wouldn't do that for me!
Click to expand...
Hating seems to me fundamentally a pushing away of something that does not feel good - often because it is not respecting us. Seems fine to me.

As far as the ethical side of the above, I am not sure this is restricted to the West, but I don't have the experience to be sure. If I can make a jump it sounds like the appeal of Buddhism is the lack of morals, per se. I also think the Western Religions have tended to view selfishness in ways that are very problematic and I am sure hunmanists still have vestiges of these judgements. If I cannot love and treat with respect what is nearest to me and what my nerves penetrate, how can I possibly love and treat with respect something further off. Mistreating myself and (or in the name of) being loving to others creates a guilt debt (a la Jesus or Abraham).

The part I bolded - I don't know about this.
I agree that in 'Westernism', abstraction is praised. But I don't understand what you mean 'And if anything is 'not self' it is abstraction'?
Click to expand...
It just felt right at the time. To think it out: Me walking around with 'do unto others as I would...' in my head and using it as a guideline for my actions, on occasion; So I have this thought. Then I have feelings, urges, experience or more tangible inner and outer phenomena. That abstractions seems very ephemeral and an introject. Perhaps other things are too, but it seems very clearly not me.




'I' or 'mine' as in: my work, my poem, my book, my painting, my house, my illness, my health, my words, my thoughts; I the intellectual, I the peasant, I the good person, I the bad person, I the stupid person, I the weakling, I the hero, I the amassing of matter, I the soul - and so on.

Colloquially, these identifications are of course usually true.
But strictly speaking, they are not; they are true only conditionally on time and various other circumstances. Yet 'Westernism', as I experience it, expects me to identify with some things unconditionally, regardless of circumstance; moreover, it expects me to accept the identifications that other people assign to me, especially if it is people of a 'higher rank' than mine.
Click to expand...


I got this. I will have to think about it.
 
many texts telling me what I am - with implicit 'shoulds' and practical rules attached.
many texts telling me what I am not - with implicit 'shoulds' (even if these are seemingly practical shoulds) and 'suggestions' (which are defacto rules).

What I am and what I am not.
What I should do, and what I am, by definition, not capable of or the agent of and can never become the agent of this.

In the end neither positive nor negative external definitions are pleasant to me nor have they fit my experience.

Is it really any better to listen to an Eastern expert who tells me I am not this and not that and this is what I should do - and it is the only thing I can do - to end my pain?

I have found it to be more complicated and I'm glad.

(by the way, in relation to 'hate'. The reification of this process into a word that can then be called bad. Defining, and then refining us with the word.)
 
greenberg said:
Yes!
It is interesting how neither positive nor negative external definitions are appealing or fitting.
Click to expand...
So, since we are bombarded consistantly with implicit and explicit definitions of who and what we are and aren't (and participate in this ourselves) - what is the best practical way of dealing with these (distorted) reflections of ourselves?

Can we use it to notice things we did not before? And how?
Or is it simply noise to learn how to disregard?
 
sowhatifit'sdark said:
So, since we are bombarded consistantly with implicit and explicit definitions of who and what we are and aren't (and participate in this ourselves) - what is the best practical way of dealing with these (distorted) reflections of ourselves?

Can we use it to notice things we did not before? And how?
Or is it simply noise to learn how to disregard?
Click to expand...

These are very relevant questions! Thank you for bringing them up.

I'll attempt to answer them, but my thoughts on this are anything but conclusive so far:

1. In the face of the dilemmas arising from implicit and explicit definitions of who and what we are and aren't, the obvious best course of action seems to be to talk and think only when necessary, and only in ways that are necessary.
Set for oneself a goal and refrain from anything that does not pertain to accomplishing that goal.

2. Understand that from different vantage points, the same thing might look even completely different. Different people have different vantage points, hence they see 'different things'.

3. Make usefulness and conducive to accomplishing one's goal one's main criterion for accepting or rejecting things and statements, instead of that main criterion being 'truth'.
Despite common sense and intellectual tradition, 'truth' makes for a very poor criterion for accepting or rejecting things and statements - because 'truth' seems to be so relative on circumstance/context/outlook that pretty much anything can pass as 'truth'.


- But I'll need to think about this some more, it is very relevant to me.
 
Frud11 said:
"As falsity is like a dissonance, truth is like a resonance."
Click to expand...

I took this as a strong support for intuitive reactions to things, such as reflections we get from others. Let me know if that is correct.

I think the trick is to know when one is reinforcing a false self+image to maintain secrets from oneself and when one is getting closer to a true image.

But I agree.

Sometimes resonance must be unsettling.
 
The mirror may not reflect, or re-radiate an image that is settling?

Communication is a form of entrainment (my current favourite word, along with words like "resonance", and some I make up as I go), and entrainment implies relaxation. A state, of lowest energy, or entropy. The path of least resistance.
Do we communicate? Does it matter if belief is part of it, and so meaning?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top