The Eastern Way of Thinking

[rousseau]

I was reading through The Way of Zen by Alan Watts this weekend and he had a nice spiel on the Eastern way of thinking, and the fundamental differences between Western and Eastern style philosophy. I highly recommend the book and without going into a lengthy diatribe wanted to start a thread on it.

I'll try to sum it up:

The Western style of thinking identifies the world as an object that needs to be rationalized and rigorously studied to reach a greater understanding about it. The Eastern way of thinking recognizes that treating the world as an object has no resolution, no end. By always working on your environment you become distinct from it and not interrelated with it as a whole. You understand how things work, but you lose the soul of things.

The Western style of thinking is purposeful, it always has some kind of aim. The Eastern style of thinking seeks to relieve itself of an aim or purpose and enter into a life of pure experience.

So for those who have, or haven't read any Eastern philosophy, what do you think of those definitions? Are they bunk? Do they make sense?

“Paradoxical as it may seem, the purposeful life has no content, no point. It hurries on and on, and misses everything. Not hurrying, the purposeless life misses nothing, for it is only when there is no goal and no rush that the human senses are fully open to receive the world.”

 

[Tammuz]

I think this is a false dichotomy. Have psychologists identified "Western" and "Eastern" ways of thinking?

I think Kahneman identified two modes of thinking, one instinctual and the other analytical. I think you can find examples of both in both the West and the East, as well as in parts of the world that belongs to neither of those two very broad categories.

 

[rousseau]

I think this is a false dichotomy. Have psychologists identified "Western" and "Eastern" ways of thinking?

I think Kahneman identified two modes of thinking, one instinctual and the other analytical. I think you can find examples of both in both the West and the East, as well as in parts of the world that belongs to neither of those two very broad categories.

I think you've misunderstood my definition of thinking as being biological, versus ontological, about the process, not the content. I'd agree with you that physiologically every person's brain functions the same way, this thread is more about the divergence in outlook between those in the West and East. IOW, how the development of their philosophy has led them to view the world in a different ways.

If you trace both styles of thought back to their roots, on one hand you get the hyper-rationalism of Ancient Greeks, and on the other hand you get the ego-less approach of the Chinese. The West seeks to triumph over unreason, where the East seeks to trumph over reason.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think it's probably wrong to (a) treat geographical zones as monolithic in terms of their philosophies and worldviews ('East' and 'West' are just convenient approximations) and (b) treat those differing worldviews/philosophies as dichotomous (there's probably a lot of overlap).

With those caveats in mind, it is interesting to compare and contrast. I broadly agree with the things said by Rousseau.

I have a sneaking feeling that the 'best' approach (assuming there is one) for most people is likely to be a mixture. That generally seems to be the case for nearly everything. I'm going to resist exploring the phrase 'yin and yang'.

Given the global dominance of what we are calling 'typically western values' in the last few centuries, maybe it is time for what we are calling 'typically eastern values' to come more to the fore.

I don't know. It's a big subject, and somewhat vague.

 

[rousseau]

I have a sneaking feeling that the 'best' approach (assuming there is one) for most people is likely to be a mixture. That generally seems to be the case for nearly everything. I'm going to resist exploring the phrase 'yin and yang'.

That's a good point and I'd agree. Eastern philosophy is great at finding us contentment, Western philosophy makes us better at playing the game. Both goals are necessary and even though they're somewhat contradictory, sometimes we need to hold contradictory feelings and beliefs.

I can admit that Eastern philosophy is better suited to achieving enlightenment, but an intellectual understanding of the world still helps too. And in some ways it's the intellectual understanding that precipitates itself into fulfilling Eastern ideas like wu-wei.

 

[steve_bank]

People back east in NYC thinka lot differently than we do in Seattle.

People in NYC think differently that people back east in London do.

I do not buy the idea that there is some inherent superiority of 'eastern thought'.

Starting probably on the 30s there was the popular image of the mysterious east. Books an movies. Somerset Mall's book and movie Lost Horizons. It has been restored and is available online I believe. The Kung Fu TV show was nothing like what the Shaolin monks were really like.

People were rejecting our culture and looking for alternatives. Believe it or not Afghanistan was a destination spot. India was a major place to get enlightened. As Joseph Campbell put it China was closed under communism and that left Indaias a place you could immerse yourself.

Zen was synthesis of Chinese Buddhism and Japanese warrior Bushido. Zen is a bit more than intriguing mental puzzles.

In the 60s 70s people became American gurus of mystic, often related to psychedelics. Ram Das. Taking Indian names was common.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Dass

You have to understand the context of the times people like Watts came up in.

Suzuki was the popular Japanese author on Zen.




You can not generalize, you have to talk specifics about specific cultures.
Japanese thought led to the Pacific war. Chinese thought led to Maoism,. And so on.

 

[rousseau]

You can not generalize, you have to talk specifics about specific cultures.
Japanese thought led to the Pacific war. Chinese thought led to Maoism,. And so on.

I get the gist of your post, although having studied most religions I'd say Buddhism, and particularly Zen, is on to something, more so than most other religions. I wouldn't call it superior to Western style philosophy, just better at different things. Specifically, I like the Eastern idea that endless intellectualizing never reaches a resolution, it just goes on and on and never satisfies itself. This allows a person to reach an end-point. Where the analytic mind never stops churning until the grave.

But beyond philosophy human nature is the same, Eastern and Western history is the same. The ontology of actualized people are where they differ.

 

[aupmanyav]

I was reading through The Way of Zen by Alan Watts this weekend and he had a nice spiel on the Eastern way of thinking, and the fundamental differences between Western and Eastern style philosophy. I highly recommend the book and without going into a lengthy diatribe wanted to start a thread on it.

So for those who have, or haven't read any Eastern philosophy, what do you think of those definitions? Are they bunk? Do they make sense?

“Paradoxical as it may seem, the purposeful life has no content, no point. It hurries on and on, and misses everything. Not hurrying, the purposeless life misses nothing, for it is only when there is no goal and no rush that the human senses are fully open to receive the world.”

Divide it in two levels of truth.
Absolute (Paramarthika Satya): No purpose. Nothing ever happened. Even creation is a mirage.
Pragmatic (Vyavaharika Satya): Sure, there is this world. I am here, my family, my society, my country, etc. So much to do. Study, Work, raise children, vote, participate in all-round activities. Then pass on when our time is over.

 

[steve_bank]

You can not generalize, you have to talk specifics about specific cultures.
Japanese thought led to the Pacific war. Chinese thought led to Maoism,. And so on.

I get the gist of your post, although having studied most religions I'd say Buddhism, and particularly Zen, is on to something, more so than most other religions. I wouldn't call it superior to Western style philosophy, just better at different things. Specifically, I like the Eastern idea that endless intellectualizing never reaches a resolution, it just goes on and on and never satisfies itself. This allows a person to reach an end-point. Where the analytic mind never stops churning until the grave.

But beyond philosophy human nature is the same, Eastern and Western history is the same. The ontology of actualized people are where they differ.

And my response is always 'whatever floats your boat', IOW whatever makes you happy. For some people it is the endless search for something.

From the Tibetan Buddhism I read Nirvana is just a resting point, just anythore thought-thing no mre real tan any oter thought.

In an interview the Dali Lama was asked about Americans who adopt Buhdism, especialy high profile types.

He said 'Why not practice the one you already have?'. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. You might be said to wandering through Smasara if I remember right. The illusory mind created view of the world.

Buddhism is not monolithic.

If you believe something of value to be had and you pursue it, then you have formed an attachment. That leads to karmic chains of thought causality leading to suffering if not fulfilled.

The idea I got from Buddhism is that is about mental stability. All the yogic exercises and chanting is about quieting mind.

In Zen there is monkey mind. That chattering screeching part of your mind that you try and keep locked up. And like a clever monkey your mind figures out how to beak the lock from time to time. Zen is of no value unless you can see it in your self.

Zen is about metaphor. Communication of concepts not reducible to logical descriptions. That is why in Asian traditions the lineage of someone you study under matters. Someone who understands the truths of the system not just the words.

That is my view of all philosophy and religion. As the Dali Lama inferred it is not what you believe but how you believe it.

In Asian traditions there are a number of Buddhist sects, Taoism. Confucianism, Zen, Shinto and others I probably have not heard of.

So if you think there is something to Zen, what is it? And that is always the question. We are conditioned by many things with an expectation bias. Japanese movies with stoic fatherly sounding men with soulful traditional music.

If you can find them. Old BW Japanese movies about Satoichi, a blind warrior mink wandering about. That is to Japan what cowboy westerns are to the USA. Or the Seven Samurai.

You need cultural context IMO.

 

[rousseau]

So if you think there is something to Zen, what is it?

My two cents - Zen and Christianity approach the divine in a similar way. In the former we have a unified, ego-less whole, in the latter we have a unified whole which is dictated by God. In the former we enter into a life of freedom and creativity - our fate is within our control - in the latter a life of passivity - our fate is beyond our control.

As religions they both have the same goal - diminishing fear and suffering - but IMO Zen does a better job of describing how the world actually works, which is why I think there's something in it. Fundamentally, it's not falsifiable. And in modern times, from the West, we have the successful Acceptance and Commitment Therapy which takes the same approach, but from a scientific perspective.

 

[steve_bank]

I take a completely different view. Try thinking of Zen as a form of therapy. I think of Buddha as the first 'self help guru'.

Just had a conversation with a lifelong pot smoker. He gets a 'sense of the divine' from pot. Pot has always been linked with mystical experience. Native Americans and peyote hallucinogenics. Now called ethnogens.

To me after a long recovery from bad health and heart failure you are either mentally and physically healthy or you are not. When you are healthy you feel good and do not need other things. Tobacco, drugs, and alcohol are easy ways out of getting to health by desensitizing you. A lot of people these days ar taking powerful mood stabilizing drugs including teens. Anxiety, depression, suicide rising.

I am not a doctor but it seems to me to be a matter of not learning positive mental health growing up. We used to get that from family.

One of my greatest spiritual experiences was when I drove cross county in 1979. It was night in the middle of Montana with a clear moonless sky. The stars and the Milky Way. For a city kid it was pretty intense. Almost overwhelming.


Back in the 90s I heard the Seattle Symphony do the entire Bach Brandenburg Concertos. For a few hours I was transported to another existence, as I expect was the entire audience.Something I read, a Zen monk realizing enlightenment at the sound of leaves he was raking. Or a Zen master creating a rock and sand work. He acieves the divine in the act, we precieve it in the result.

So, what is the divine? And back to something we talk about but can not articulate. We can experince it and communicate through mediums like art, poetry, and music.

The seeker and pilgrim are on a quest for the indescribable and inexpressible. The quest for The Holy Grail in the Arthurian legends.

 

[rousseau]

I take a completely different view. Try thinking of Zen as a form of therapy. I think of Buddha as the first 'self help guru'.

That's partly what I was getting at and why I mentioned Acceptance and Commitment Therapy.

If you take those two constructs: Zen and ACT, they both have similar goals of relieving suffering and present more or less the same idea, but Zen takes a cosmic, holistic approach (the divine), while ACT looks at the science while ignoring spiritual implications.

 

[rousseau]

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Zen Buddhism

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, an acceptance- and mindfulness-based cognitive behavior therapy, is said to reflect many common tenets underlying Zen Buddhism. However, little has been written about the relationship between Zen Buddhism and ACT. A few researchers have highlighted the parallels between Zen Buddhism and ACT, but writing about the plausible influences of Buddhism on the development of ACT is almost nonexistent. In the present chapter, entitled Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Zen Buddhism, Kenneth Fung and Josephine Wong first provide a short account of the historical development of Western Buddhism in America and explore its influence on the development of ACT. Second, they describe how ACT is similar to and different from Zen Buddhism. Finally, using clinical examples, they propose a more explicit integration of Zen Buddhism into ACT to strengthen its practice.

 

[abaddon]

... but Zen takes a cosmic, holistic approach (the divine), while ACT looks at the science while ignoring spiritual implications.

I don't think I've ever read anything about "the divine" in any of the Zen books I've read. Can I ask where you got that?

 

[rousseau]

... but Zen takes a cosmic, holistic approach (the divine), while ACT looks at the science while ignoring spiritual implications.

I don't think I've ever read anything about "the divine" in any of the Zen books I've read. Can I ask where you got that?

It's been a number of months since I went through Suzuki's Essential, I can't recall for certain if it made direct reference to the divine. It's possible, but it might just be my interpretation. That said, I'm definitely referring to an atheistic divine, nothing to do with any type of God.

 

[rousseau]

Satori.

I'd say Satori is the essence of it - it comes from within yourself and your new experiential relationship with the world, rather than impinging on you.

 

[abaddon]

... but Zen takes a cosmic, holistic approach (the divine), while ACT looks at the science while ignoring spiritual implications.

I don't think I've ever read anything about "the divine" in any of the Zen books I've read. Can I ask where you got that?

It's been a number of months since I went through Suzuki's Essential, I can't recall for certain if it made direct reference to the divine. It's possible, but it might just be my interpretation. That said, I'm definitely referring to an atheistic divine, nothing to do with any type of God.

Suzuki was looking at western religion to find correlations in it, so he could say in effect "THAT thing in your religion is like THIS thing in Zen". IMV that's always a mistake. There's no nontheist "divine", that's a contradiction in terms. For a while Suzuki was going on about Swedenborg as the western Buddha. That's how incredibly bad this "looking for correlates" problem can get.

Nevermind alleged similarities, they will always mislead. It's not even hardly apples and oranges. Western thought's dualistic and essentialist to the core, Zen is the exact opposite entirely.

IMO, you're best off reading no books older than 2000. Unless you're going straight to the source and reading some Zen sutras.

About the similarity between Zen and ACT, I think the main one is the retraining of the sense of self. It's therapeutically useful to "de-fuse" from your thoughts and feelings by identifying as an observer of them. That way you can stand outside them and observe dispassionately, so they don't have a hold on you (so you don't "fuse" with them). We tend to think we are our thoughts and feelings, but we're not.

You build up a psychological flexibility in doing this, where you can "expand" enough to hold both pleasant and unpleasant experience, including the jibber-jabber of "the monkey mind", within the observing awareness. Then, "you" are the empty space in which everything in "the world" happens - all the thoughts, memories, feelings, experiences. Then, you're not "fused" with them.

Zen maybe emphasizes this even more. The story about who "I" am is not who your true or original self is. So psychology isn't of interest anymore, in a contemplative practice like this, since improving the "me" that psychology obsesses over is of no interest. Psychology is a study of (and treatment of) awareness-contents, not of awareness itself for which there is no therapy since it "just is".

But in any case, the point is "you're not your stories, your 'face before you were born' isn't defined by the beliefs, stories, thoughts, philosophizing, or any other abstractions, that go on in your mind (or in anyone else's either)". That's liberation, when that aforementioned space is so empty that there's just the world and no "me" coloring it with its judgments. This is the emptiness mentioned in your Satori wikipedia link. Presumably compassion with all the world results, since letting the whole world replace your self makes everything intimate... there's no separation, no distance, between "me" and "the world" anymore. "You" are empty for the world (to phrase it dualistically... like I can't help but do since that's the nature of language).

I'm no Watts or Suzuki, of course. I just read a few books too . Watts, with his genius analogies, would have been more clear. But I think the newer books are clearer still. It's also interesting to see Zen from contemporary Zen eyes instead of hearing it from these fellows who were still wondering "how can we translate these exotic ideas to these westerners?" Maybe read a book or two by Steve Hagen and David R Loy next, if interested?

 

[rousseau]

Suzuki was looking at western religion to find correlations in it, so he could say in effect "THAT thing in your religion is like THIS thing in Zen". IMV that's always a mistake. There's no nontheist "divine", that's a contradiction in terms. For a while Suzuki was going on about Swedenborg as the western Buddha. That's how incredibly bad this "looking for correlates" problem can get.

That's fair and I fully understand your perspective as well as the intent of zen. Truthfully, the use of divine comes from me, for the most part, although I tend to be liberal with how I use words. Maybe some other word is appropriate.

For me it's that when looking through the perspective of zen I experience a kind of.. 'moreness'. Surely there is intrinsically nothing more actually there, but the experience isn't just.. nothing. If that makes sense. I can't help but tie in a sense of spirituality with it, or if one prefers, emotion.

 

[steve_bank]

A sense of the divine is not just theism. We all feel it at times, theists think it is unique to their beliefs and goat the end of The Power Of Myth and an historical review Joseph Campbell concluded all myths portray the same fundamental human truths in different cultural forms and metaphors.

That is my view.

 

[aupmanyav]

So, what is the divine? And back to something we talk about but can not articulate. We can experience it and communicate through mediums like art, poetry, and music.

Yeah, we can and we do, but why call the experience 'divine'? Nice, wonderful, magnificent will do just as well.
Well, I hate words like God, divine, etc. They have nefarious connotations.