Asian Schools of Thought & Philosophy

[Exarch]

It's natural for all people, irrespective of creed or culture to seek spirituality in all its forms and features.
Most westerners seek other paths of religion and spirituality, other than the traditional judeo-christian, to experience new spiritual perspectives.
The title says asian schools of thought; that means i wish to discuss any religious/spiritual school of thought east of the middle east, so hindu, sikhism, taoism, zen, etc

Despite being an avowed atheist, i find that a lot of my spirituality corresponds a lot with zen and taoism and, to a lesser extent, the teachings of mozi.

[Chaigidel]

taoism is a superior system of thought In my opinion, and key to many of the ways I look upon my particular existence.

[Exarch]

care to elaborate on that chag?

[Chaigidel]

it is about doing(nothingness) , about being(emptiness) --- awareness of your enviroment and yourself

just read it

the tao that can be tao'd is not the tao

[eventhorizen]

Despite being an avowed atheist, i find that a lot of my spirituality corresponds a lot with zen and taoism and, to a lesser extent, the teachings of mozi.

I find myself having the exact same relationship. I am fairly to new to the Tao Te Ching but I find that little book to be most profound. I do query the validity of the term spirituality though.

Considering their age, and their content, the works I am familiar with are highly impressive. It has taken Western dialectic and analytic processes millenia to attain many of the same conclusions through a completely seperate path.

This in its own way adds even greater value to the Eastern principle of understanding through observation, not education.

[Exarch]

I find myself having the exact same relationship. I am fairly to new to the Tao Te Ching but I find that little book to be most profound. I do query the validity of the term spirituality though.

Considering their age, and their content, the works I am familiar with are highly impressive. It has taken Western dialectic and analytic processes millenia to attain many of the same conclusions through a completely seperate path.

This in its own way adds even greater value to the Eastern principle of understanding through observation, not education.

there's a saying in taiwan i think, that u shouldnt read the tao te ching unless ur about 50 or so, lest u go mad.....considering i'm already mad, it might drive me back into sanity

btw, i think they're drawing similar conclusions to lao zi, the writer of the i ching, in quantum mechanics

[Exarch]

i see.
in that respect i suppose ur right. there's a reason why many taoists liken the tao to water;

Water is soft and weak, but it can move earth and carve stone. Taoist philosophy proposes that the universe works harmoniously according to its own ways. When someone exerts his will against the world, he disrupts that harmony. Taoism does not identify man's will as the root problem. Rather, it asserts that man must place his will in harmony with the natural universe

.

i find this thought calms me a lot, i suppose because in a way i'm being fatalistic and accepting my lot in life...not dissimilar to the buddhist principle of detachment from desire...

[Irishman]

The Dao De Jing largely began as a response to the problems of the issues of governing massive ammounts of people and the problems large governments provide.

Buddhism is an interesting case, as it has developed into two very different styles. There is the mystical, religious Buddhism, containing literal reincarnation etc exemplified by Tibetan and some forms of Mahayana and Therevadan.

Then there is the philosophical Buddhism, which is a more recent development, but becoming very popular in sects like Zen.

What is also interesting is that in Buddhism, the mystical stuff (and there is a lot) is all secondary. There is no problem if you claim that none of it is real, the key is the philosophy.

Overall, as modern western philosphies develop away from their christian roots, I think that asian religions will take more hold, as they generally disagree with western.

[eventhorizen]

The Dao De Jing largely began as a response to the problems of the issues of governing massive ammounts of people and the problems large governments provide.

This is misleading or perhaps misunderstood. Taoist philosophy developed alongside and in contrast to many of the schools of thought developing at that time, and this period of intellectual endeavour was stimulated by a dynamic, complex and changing political and social background.

Taoist philosophy did not emerge as a response to these issues in the literal sense, but in part because of these issues, and in conjuction with the fermentation of wider political, intellectual and philosophical thought.

The fundamental Taoist texts reject material wealth, promote moral relativism, encourage reaction, reject emotion, reject the self, reject logic, reject long term planning, reject education, relationships etc.

That Taoist principles can be found to have relevance to governance and state, even perhaps profound relevance such as in "The Art of War" is a measure of their value, not of their writers ambitions or aims.

Overall, as modern western philosphies develop away from their christian roots, I think that asian religions will take more hold, as they generally disagree with western.

If this is the case, which it may well be, then it is a cultural manifestation profoundly missing the point. As simple and profound as Taoism may be, Western philosophy and thinking still has its own values for its own reasons.

I see no disagreement between lao tzu and mohammed nor between buddha and jesus.

Ofcourse you don't, but you seem blinded by the religious and spiritual implications of all schools of thought to the fundamental lessons taught by any work of mind.

Jesus taught, for example, that the path to eternal life is through compassion, love for one another, and faith in his existence. Lao Tzu on the other hand states that not only are such views irrelevant, but that the body creates an illusion of self which can die, whereas we are manifestations of the Tao which cannot die.

[Chaigidel]

I see no disagreement between lao tzu and mohammed nor between buddha and jesus.


Emptiness, Nothingness, Holy harmony.

[Chaigidel]

no actually you simply misinterpret jesus, as do most, lao tzu of course speaks more plainly.

there is no path to eternal life, there is only what is.

[Irishman]

This is misleading or perhaps misunderstood. Taoist philosophy developed alongside and in contrast to many of the schools of thought developing at that time, and this period of intellectual endeavour was stimulated by a dynamic, complex and changing political and social background.

? That is what I said.

If this is the case, which it may well be, then it is a cultural manifestation profoundly missing the point. As simple and profound as Taoism may be, Western philosophy and thinking still has its own values for its own reasons.

Western philosophy is developing in such a way as we are starting to lose our misconceptions of our self and God(the likes of Derek Parfit are leading the way in such developments.)

I am not saying that they are simply accepting taoism, but many Asian influenced philosophies are more closely related to modern philosophy than to the old western Christian philosophy.

[chriscase]

As a veteran of a couple decades of New Ageism, I distrust the Western inclination to seek personal enlightenment via "exotic", non-Western cultural practices. The discipline of anthropology warns us against precisely this inclination as a form of colonial ethnocentrism. It is difficult to appreciate some other culture if we are in denial of our own, not that I am accusing anyone on this thread of that. But I do think the attaction of something like Taoism often has more to do with the very Western tendency of escapism than it has to do with genuine appreciation of Lao Tzu's ideas.

I don't think I can remember how many silly arguments I have heard that essentially boiled down to something out of either the Symposium or The Pilgrim's Progress, but were ostensibly about Macrobiotics, or Native American sprituality, or Tantra. You can dress a Puritan up in beads and feathers, stick him in a teepee, and feed him brown rice, but all you will get is the same story with different nouns.

On the other hand, there is an astounding depth and richness to Western philosophy and thought. Given that, I tend to focus more on trying to understand my own heritage.

[Chaigidel]

all of human history is your heritage.

[chriscase]

all of human history is your heritage.

This way lies ethnocentrism. Ask the Sioux how they feel about all the white people who show up at pow-wows and pretend to have visions.

We can understand and interpret other philosophies though. No one is simply accepting Asian philosophies and no one is denying western philosophies, the goal is to examine them and try to find the truth.

Oh, I'm not saying it can't be done. I just think a healthy self-skepticism is in order.

[Irishman]

On the other hand, there is an astounding depth and richness to Western philosophy and thought. Given that, I tend to focus more on trying to understand my own heritage.

We can understand and interpret other philosophies though. No one is simply accepting Asian philosophies and no one is denying western philosophies, the goal is to examine them and try to find the truth.

[Irishman]

This way lies ethnocentrism. Ask the Sioux how they feel about all the white people who show up at pow-wows and pretend to have visions.

Actually it would be your position that is the ethnocentric one. The sioux would be ethnocentric in their claim that no person, because of their culture or race can be part of a certain philosophy.

Of course, you can speak out against the new-age bastardization of philosophies. For instance, there are many new-agers who claim to like Buddhist philosophies, but they know nothing about them. This says nothing though against the person who honestly wants to learn the philosophy.

[chriscase]

Actually it would be your position that is the ethnocentric one. The sioux would be ethnocentric in their claim that no person, because of their culture or race can be part of a certain philosophy.

Of course, you can speak out against the new-age bastardization of philosophies. For instance, there are many new-agers who claim to like Buddhist philosophies, but they know nothing about them. This says nothing though against the person who honestly wants to learn the philosophy.

I didn't say it was impossible for white people to appreciate Native American spirituality. But as a practical matter, it is not possible to appreciate another culture without approaching it respectfully, and above all this means acknowledgment that other cultures are different, and we are likely to be profoundly ignorant of them. The assumption that, just because some cultural practice appeals to us, we are free to appropriate it with impunity, is a form of cultural colonialism. And it tends to use the very same justification, "all of human history is <my> heritage."

It's not like I made this up myself. My experience with New Agers and my exposure to Native American studies have lead me to agree with this perspective, but if you want some references, there are a whole bunch here. If you want to read an op-ed piece that more or less summarizes this perspective, this isn't a bad one.

[Irishman]

The assumption that, just because some cultural practice appeals to us, we are free to appropriate it with impunity

I never claimed this.

It's not like I made this up myself. My experience with New Agers and my exposure to Native American studies have lead me to agree with this perspective, but if you want some references, there are a whole bunch here. If you want to read an op-ed piece that more or less summarizes this perspective, this isn't a bad one.

So all you are saying is that we have to approach philosophy with respect? Of course I agree with that.

[chriscase]

So all you are saying is that we have to approach philosophy with respect? Of course I agree with that.

And part of that respect is what I referred to earlier as a "healthy self-skepticism" when dealing with non-Western cultures.

I never claimed this.

And I never claimed you did. What I did say was that the statement "all of human history is <my> heritage" is the kind of thinking I have heard from some New Agers who do this sort of thing. And you didn't post that either.