Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

The Western Psyche

nenkohainenkohai Veteran
edited April 2013 in Arts & Writings
In the forward to DT Suzuki's "Introduction to Zen Buddhism," Carl Jung wrote: "Great as is the value of Zen Buddhism for the understanding of the religious transformation process, its use among Western peoples is very improbable. The spiritual conceptions necessary to Zen are missing in the West."

In her book, "Eyes Wide Open," Dr Mariana Caplan talks of "the spiritual marketplace" - both for physical objects (clothes, statutes, incense...) and for teachers. In my mind that translates to a capitalist invasion of spirituality. Capitalism being a Western construct and mind-set.

The larger implication to me is that many learned people consider the Western psyche as incompatible with Buddhism. That Westerners lack a certain environment and conditioning that would otherwise allow Westerners to fully immerse into Buddhist thought. Elements of Buddhism are outside the Westerners ability to comprehend and assimilate.

I must admit, that I accept the probability that I am held captive by my Western-world conditioning.

What are your thoughts?

Peace to you.
blu3ree

Comments

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    I don't know a lot about zen, but I have made 2 observations about those that follow it. First, as you have indicated, I'm not sure that it very well fits the Western-mindset. Second, that I have known a couple of people who are "into" zen because they think it's cool; they like to show it off; it fulfills a need they have to be different; and they seem to be on an ever-changing merry-go-round of different stages in their life, none of which are very consistent.

    Now, don't take that to mean that there are no Westerners sincerely into zen. I don't mean that at all. I can see in this forum that a number of people who are truly into zen. I'm just trying to differentiate between them, and some that I have known personally who are just temporarily (although it may be for months or years) sampling something as a means of showing everyone how different they are.
    nenkohairiverflowInvincible_summerCinorjer
  • What are your thoughts?
    Trying to cut back on them.

    I would suggest people confuse culture with dharma. I do not want or require to be a second grade sinophile or Zen Sushi.
    My ability to be enlightened is not hampered by culture . . . or in my case lack of culture . . .
    :wave:
    nenkohairiverflow
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    edited April 2013
    lobster said:

    ......My ability to be enlightened is not hampered by culture . . . or in my case lack of culture . . .
    :wave:

    I doubt that very much. The lens through which we see all things in the world affects what we see or see clearly.

  • RodrigoRodrigo São Paulo, Brazil Veteran
    I think that there are too many people, countries, regions and cultures in the "West" to be put in only one category. And some things may have changed since Jung made this statement. For example, the world is much smaller now, due to technological advances. Perhaps it is indeed more difficult for a western mind to grasp some conceptions of zen and buddhism, but I want to believe that it's not impossible.
    vinlynriverflownenkohai
  • genkakugenkaku Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
    If, for the sake of a too-generalized conversation, it can be granted that getting to the bottom of things is the direction of all serious spiritual practice, then I don't think it makes much difference whether anyone is a true-blue or utterly-bogus "Buddhist."

    Get to the bottom of the most elevated, airy-fairy and wondrous spirituality ....
    Get to the bottom of the most confused, self-centered and corrupt spirituality ....

    If you get to the bottom of it, I figure everyone gets to dance.

    But that's just my myopic 'western' perspective.
    nenkohai
  • nenkohai said:

    Carl Jung wrote: "Great as is the value of Zen Buddhism for the understanding of the religious transformation process, its use among Western peoples is very improbable. The spiritual conceptions necessary to Zen are missing in the West."

    I don't think Jung understood that Zen is not a monolithic entity, or that the parts of Zen which Suzuki was most interested in receive very little attention in Japan. It's kind of like saying "The use of Jesuit Ignation Meditation among Japanese people is very improbable. The spiritual conceptions necessary to it are missing in Japan." It's true, but kind of vacuous, because the the use of Ignation Meditation is very improbable (rare) even in the West. And it's the same with Zen. The spiritual conceptions necessary to it are rare because there are strong selection pressures against people who hold such conceptions. That's not to say that you can't lead a good life following Zen/Buddhism as Suzuki understood it, just that you're unlikely to be wildly successful in transmitting your way/view of life to lots of other people.
    nenkohaiInvincible_summer
  • ToshTosh Veteran
    nenkohai said:


    I must admit, that I accept the probability that I am held captive by my Western-world conditioning.

    What are your thoughts?

    It's windy outside.

    (That's a bad joke; I've been listening to too much Steve Hagen I think).

    nenkohairiverflow
  • NevermindNevermind Bitter & Hateful Veteran
    nenkohai said:

    In the forward to DT Suzuki's "Introduction to Zen Buddhism," Carl Jung wrote: "Great as is the value of Zen Buddhism for the understanding of the religious transformation process, its use among Western peoples is very improbable. The spiritual conceptions necessary to Zen are missing in the West."

    Makes perfect sense to me, cuz like if Westerners didn't have something like sushi, how could we make use of sushi? We'd be like, "hey put this back in the oven, it's totally raw!"
    RodrigoInvincible_summerblu3reenenkohai
  • I don't think it is as simple as east and west not meeting eye to eye and that there is some sort of impermeable cultural boundary. Reading Plotinus, Pseudo-Dionysius and Eckhart (or a physicist like David Bohm!), a very similar dialectical process takes place. The main difference is that in the west the emphasis has not been as strong.

    The Diamond Sutra, for example, reminds me very much of Pseudo-Dionysius' Mystical Theology, expressed in non-theological terms. The same goes for the Daodejing. The rest is just window dressing, which no one (eastern or western) should get too caught up in. But you won't find many Christians (or westerners at all) reading something like The Cloud of Unknowing. Many westerners don't even know their own heritage, much less that of "the east." If they did, Buddhism probably wouldn't seem so "exotic" after all.

    And besides, if the general stereotype held true (discusrsive thinking = west / intuitive or mystical thinking = east) then why would there be so many Chan Buddhists in the past who practised for years and years and finally getting only a glimpse of awakening? By all rights, it ought to be easier for a Chinese practitioner in the 12th century to get it than a US American in the 21st. But, at least from what I understand, that doesn't seem to be the case.
    nenkohai
  • From The Mystical Theology of Pseudo-Dionysius:

    Again, ascending yet higher, we maintain that it [God] ... neither [is] one nor oneness, nor godhead nor goodness; nor is it spirit according to our understanding, nor filiation, nor paternity ... neither is it darkness nor light, nor the false nor the true; nor can any affirmation or negation be applied to it, for although we may affirm or deny the things below it, we can neither affirm nor deny it, inasmuch as the all-perfect and unique Cause of all things transcends all affirmation, and the simple pre-eminence of Its absolute nature is outside of every negation- free from every limitation and beyond them all.

    ~ ~ ~

    From The Heart Sutra:

    Here, Shariputra,
    All dharmas are marked with emptiness.
    They are neither produced nor destroyed.
    Neither defiled nor immaculate.
    Neither increasing nor decreasing.
    Therefore, in emptiness there is neither form, nor feeling, nor perceptions.
    No mental formations, no consciousness.
    No eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind.
    No form, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no objects of mind.
    No realms of elements from eyes to mind consciousness.
    No interdependent origins and no extinction of them.
    (From ignorance to death and decay)
    No ill-being, no cause of ill-being, no end of ill-being, and no path.
    No understanding, no attainment....

    personnenkohai
  • rivercanerivercane Veteran
    edited April 2013
    Here is my less-than-brilliant take on the subject: I think the root of the problem is the type of materialistic Western philosophy we are taught in school. It really is quite different then Eastern thought, be it Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.

    Once we are raised and educated in this way, it makes it very difficult for most of us to fully comprehend Eastern thought. We are not using to thinking in terms of aeons of cyclic time, rebirth, journeying to other spiritual worlds, etc.

    To me, and this is just my personal opinion, Western thought appears puny and unsatisfying compared to the East; just this one life and then you spend eternity in one of two places. There is only one world, this world, and according to fundamentalists it is rough 6,000 years old and this universe has only been created once.

    Of course, there is a bit more to Western philosophy but I have to admit that, besides the ancient Greeks, I was bored while taking the required Western philosophy classes at university, but I had no problem reading about Zen Buddhism or Hinduism on my own. I found it fascinating and very subtle, not based on dogma pounding you on the head.

    In my opinion, there's no wonder we have such a problem with things such as drug addiction in the West and people feeling alienated and incomplete. The underlying philosophy is not satisfying. But again, these are just my thoughts.
    Invincible_summernenkohai
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited April 2013
    Actually Buddhism is Indopean like europ whereas abrahamic religions are outside of that. There are old ties to India.

    But for the most part there are pros and cons to each situation. We are in samsara and from that standpoint we can identify the craving mind wherever we are.
    nenkohai
  • nenkohainenkohai Veteran
    edited April 2013
    Some great insight here. Thank you!

    I'll admit, it troubles me to consider that I may be missing some major facet of Buddhism simply owing to my cultural heritage. Indeed if there is nothing that is not the Tao (@riverflow - you're wonderful comments yell "Taoist" to me! :) )and/or Dharma, then am I not seeing the forest because I'm hiding underneath the fallen leaves under the trees?

    Lordy, I hope not! (my inner sense says, "even if it is true, you'll find your path...")
    riverflow
  • BhanteLuckyBhanteLucky Alternative lifestyle person in the South Island of New Zealand New Zealand Veteran
    At my local monastery there are three Germans... wait, four, if you include the Austrian (sorry Austrians!), and they say Theravada is much more popular than Zen/Mahayana with Germans. They explicitly pointed to the straightforward nature of Theravada as why it was so popular there.
    No koans, no riddles, no brain-bending stories... just a prescription, a moral code, a method, and good old western-style sermons.
    Maybe their western psyche resonates more with than than difficult, non-obvious Zen.
    Invincible_summer
  • @nenkohai

    Good catch on the Daoist undercurrent! --this is why I am drawn to Chan (and by extension, Mahayana in general). Daoism had an indirect influence on the Chinese approach to Buddhism, because Daoist thought was so deeply a part of Chinese culture by the time Buddhism crossed over from India, which is paradoxically "mystical" and very "pragmatic" at the same time. These elements were already in Indian Buddhism, but the Chinese approach accentuated this aspect of Buddhism, which gives it a distinct "flavour" (just as other cultures accentuate Buddhism in their own unique way).

    The Daodejing was my introduction to eastern thought, followed with Alan Watts (who, while not always an accurate exponent of eastern thought, still serves as a great introduction I think). But at the same time I was exposed to a lot of western mysticism too and noticed the similar dialectical logic--which ultimately is not meant to generate more thinking but to shove one out of the limits of thought altogether. When I was younger, there was a time when I was greatly enamoured with the Greek Orthodox Church, which is, in contrast to the modern west, just as "exotic" as Buddhism.

    The Chan (or Zen) approach focuses on im-mediacy -- that is, without the mediation of concepts, though this isn't entirely true-- Zongmi, Dogen and others could do more than their fair share of talking! Most of the stick hitting and eccentric stories come from a particular period in the history of Chan which the Beats picked up on and probably gets much more attention than it really deserves-- that iconoclastic element was naturally appealing to the Beats, but it also has helped give a skewered picture of Chan practice-- and hence the shock some people have when they find out Buddhism is not "just a philosophy" but involves chanting, prostrating and sutra reading, not just sitting on a zafu. Of course, getting started with meditation only is a good start (that's all I really did in the beginning myself), but there is more to Chan than that.

    A similar sentiment is expressed in the first chapter of the Daodejing: "Dao pre-scribed as the Dao is not the ever-present Dao." And for me, Dao and tathata ("suchness") is roughly synonymous. For all the talk about "ultimate reality," it is not a concept, it is not a belief, it is not an ideology, it is not even "truth"-- because these are all just words, abstractions superimposed upon the reality that we actually are living in already, and which we are actually an expression of. In this sense, the samsaric world we live in is really an abstraction. What is to be transcended is not the world but the abstractions that come between us and the life we are already living. Chan is actually simple-- it is we who make what is simple very complicated. Dao, or tathata (or "is-ness," as Eckhart referred to God) is already here, not somewhere else.
    nenkohaiInvincible_summerCinorjer
  • @nenkohai - I meant to mention also: a book I found very helpful in understanding the methodology of Chan:

    Chan Buddhism by Peter D. Hershock - he puts things in a beautifully clear way I think...
    karmablues
  • Invincible_summerInvincible_summer Heavy Metal Dhamma We(s)t coast, Canada Veteran
    Am I the only one that sort of sees a tinge of Orientalism in this, what with the whole exoticizing of Buddhism as some "distant, esoteric religion of the east?"

    I've talked about Buddhism with friends that live in/were raised in East Asia, and most of them don't seem to know much about it. They know the holidays they have in China/Korea/Japan/Taiwan; they know about going to a temple and burning incense; and of course they know about bald people with robes meditating.

    The East Asians I know that are Buddhist don't seem to have any deeper of an understanding than most Westerners I've met, though I can't read their minds and am only basing this off of the conversations we've had.

    In fact, most younger people I know from East Asia see Buddhism as sort of an "old people's religion," because it's their parents and grandparents who practice it. Interestingly, this is the reason some Korean friends gave me for why they go to Christian churches. Western Christianity (I'm talking about traditions like Protestantism and Catholicism, as opposed to Orthodox or Coptic) doesn't seem that incompatible with people from the East... I live in a city with tons of Chinese people, and we have quite a few churches geared towards the Chinese-Canadian community. My family is Christian and Chinese. I don't see any problems with my "Eastern" family (even my grandparents) "integrating" into the "Western" mindset of Christianity.

    I'm rambling a bit.

    I guess my point is, I think the idea that Easterners "get" Buddhism moreso than Westerners is bogus and Orientalist and doesn't do favours for either party. I really think it's just up to the individual person's character and openness.

    @nenkohai - Does Jung elaborate any more on the "spiritual conceptions necessary to Zen [that] are missing in the West?" It's quite a vague statement when we don't have any examples.
    nenkohaiEnigmalobstermusic
  • SimonSimon Explorer
    edited April 2013
    The dominant 'Western Psyche' might be incompatible with Buddhism and Buddhist practice, but that doesn't mean Western people are necessarily. The kind of Western people who find themselves actively learning about Buddhism are probably on a path leading them away from the stale, uninspiring and often immoral notions of capitalism and career which are the norm here.

    Arguably, the growing popularity of Buddhism in the West in linked to the desire among many Western people to free themselves from the capitalist lifestyle


    I guess my point is, I think the idea that Easterners "get" Buddhism moreso than Westerners is bogus and Orientalist and doesn't do favours for either party. I really think it's just up to the individual person's character and openness.

    Totally agree with that. It's all about individuals looking for something real, it's just that people in India and Tibet or wherever got on that hype before us
    Invincible_summernenkohaipersonpoptart
  • I agree with @Invincible_summer that Jung was confusing the cultural trappings of the East with the Dharma. Buddhism in the form as practiced in the East will certainly never take hold in the West, no more than Buddhism as practiced in India took hold in China. But that doesn't mean Buddhism won't take root, only it will come from a seed instead of a transplanted tree, to paraphrase the wise Ajahn Chah quoted above.
    personnenkohai
  • DT Suzuki is not an authoritative source for Zen philosophy. If you want to deeper your understanding of zen avoid anti-intellectualism and study zen philosophers such as Dogen or Chinul. If you want to read a modern work on Zen check out Dale S. Wright's Philosophical Reflections on Zen Buddhism
    nenkohai
  • Jesus said: A prophet is never honored in his own country.

    Similar is the case with religion.
    riverflownenkohai
Sign In or Register to comment.