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
nenkohai
Veteran
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.
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.
1
Comments
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.
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:
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.
(That's a bad joke; I've been listening to too much Steve Hagen I think).
It was an important lesson for me: I learned that Japanese are just people. They are not superhuman. They make mistakes and they can act silly or stupid just like us; silly and stupid Westerners.
There’s nothing wrong with the Western psyche; or there is not wrong more with it than there is wrong with human psyche in general.
I never felt the urge to go back to Japan again. I could go there for the gardens or the architecture, but not for some superior Japanese Zen. There simply is no such thing (imho).
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.
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....
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.
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.
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!
Lordy, I hope not! (my inner sense says, "even if it is true, you'll find your path...")
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.
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.
Chan Buddhism by Peter D. Hershock - he puts things in a beautifully clear way I think...
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.
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 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
He believed that Buddhism would flourish in the West and in 1975 he established Wat Pah Nanachat (aka International Forest Monastery) as a local branch of his temple dedicated to teaching Western monks. After his Western students matured in wisdom, he encouraged them to establish Sanghas in the West which they did.
---------------------------------
Understanding that everyone and everything, including "I", has both "pros" and "cons", is constantly changing and is completely dependent on other things and beings.
Seeing that no matter what I do or have, there's always some degree of stress or uneasiness just around the corner; giving up hope that some thing or situation will make me and keep me happy.
Realizing that pursuing things and situations for my own sake alone, does not increase happiness but on the contrary, increases misery; that only doing things to help others brings psychological relief.
Discovering that my thoughts and feelings are imperfect for both describing reality and guiding me to deal with it; therefore, regularly taking time to calm thoughts and feelings down and inquire into their nature in a dispassionate way.
Focusing on this moment rather than dwelling on my stories about past and future because this moment is the only thing I can directly influence.
---------------------------------
I doubt that there's any random group of a billion people, a million people, or even a hundred people anywhere on Earth, such that at least one of them won't embrace the above. For the above is nothing special, but rather a sensible reaction to and a wise way to deal with an uncertain, impermanent reality without driving oneself and others crazy.
Buddhism seems to have less baggage than other religions so that this practical philosophy/discipline is more evident in it. But it has no monopoly on it. It's just one of the more direct ways of teaching it. As long as there is some freedom of information and expression, there'll always be people who gravitate towards Buddhism.
They can be as as shallow as most people's Buddhist practice or understanding.
Lamas on coming to the West from Tibet had to drag out their deepest teachings because their was a thirst for it. Most people in Tibet were not interested in anything more than blind faith . . .
Buddhism is as good as our commitment, study and practice.
Similar is the case with religion.