Eastern (Asian) Buddhism compared to Western Materialism

[Dchristian]

Hey guys!

I'm taking a "Religions of the East" course right now at college! It's a very cool class and the professor is great!

I wanted to ask you guys a question and that is how does Asian/Eastern Buddhism compare or differ from Western materialism. From what I know, Eastern Buddhism would differ from Western materialism quite a bit. For one thing, many Eastern Buddhists believe in reincarnation as opposed to the idea that you cease to exist after bodily death from materialism.

Also, my professor said that nirvana is not oblivion as many Westerners mistakenly interpret it that way. I will have to ask him what various schools think nirvana is in Buddhism.

So comment or ask as many questions as you'd like on this topic! I wanted to get a bit of an Eastern philosophy discussion going on the forum!

Take care, everybody!

[Fooloso4]

I think you might have much more success if you were to focus more narrowly on some particular concepts that you have read about. Comparisons are far more likely to be misleading than helpful until one has gained a fuller perspective of the things being compared. Within both the East and the West there is far more diversity than may be apparent.

The term ‘Western materialism’ is problematic first because within its narrow confines it contains a diversity of views and second it is not representative of the Western philosophical tradition.

I will have to ask him what various schools think nirvana is in Buddhism.

A good question, but one that can be answered in different ways. As a matter of scholarship s/he might discuss the various descriptions given, but, as they say in Zen, the picture of a rice cake is not a rice cake. In other words, the answer is not intellectual but experiential. Only the Buddhas know, all else is just pictures and images.

If you get on the subject of koans you might ask about their logic. Some schools say that they have no logic, that the goal is to curtain logical thought, but others claim that they do have an internal logic that only becomes apparent when one is able to work through them. See, for example, Thomas Cleary, Unlocking the Zen Koan.

[TSBU]

(...) There are speciallized stores to that kind of things, you can buy your magazine and your clothes, your herbs, your speciall shampoo, listen in your mp3 your kind of chillout music, to show that you are not a "materialist" (in my country there are lines of stores called "Different" and "zen" ), I'm sure you can buy a course in Zen stuff.

And why do they say "asian"? Japan? Sure, TV there is "spiritual". Russia? Yeah, sure. China? I'm not rcist, but if I hear about a stranger who has started a business selling every kind of cheap things, I will think that he is probably from there. India? Yeah they have a river with death bodys, and they sure don't eat, but that's not spiritual at all, they die of hunger because they can't do other thing.

There are smart people and "spiritual" people all over the world. But, ey, buy our "asian spirituality" now, and with the next budhism book you'll get a kimono and some tea.

[Fooloso4]

TSBU:

There are speciallized stores to that kind of things …

It is not clear what the OP meant by Western materialism. S/he might have meant, as you assume, consumerism, but might have meant philosophical materialism or physicalism or naturalism. This seems more consistent with the observation regarding death.

Department stores in the U.S. sell a line of cosmetics called “philosophy”. Should this prompt a rant against the Western philosophic tradition?

And why do they say "asian"?

It is a term used to identify schools of Buddhism brought back from India to China that spread to Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, Korea, etc.. Best known in the West is Japanese Zen which is a transliteration of the Chinese Chan. The best of literature has far more to do with conceptualization, psychology, cognition, and practice than “spirituality”. Reading Zhuangzi or Dogen will disabuse you of your misinformed notions of what Asian Buddhism is. But be warned, it can be every bit as dense, difficult, and challenging to your intellectual and conceptual resources as the best of the Western philosophers.

[TSBU]

It is not clear what the OP meant by Western materialism. S/he might have meant, as you assume, consumerism, but might have meant philosophical materialism or physicalism or naturalism. This seems more consistent with the observation regarding death.

In both cases the word "western" is useless. It's a word used with many meanings, and Eastern or Western materialisms are different. Also, Russia is in Asia, but at least in my country, when people talk about asian philosophy, they are never talking about Russian philosophers.

Department stores in the U.S. sell a line of cosmetics called “philosophy”. Should this prompt a rant against the Western philosophic tradition?

I'm not saying that eastern philosophers are worse than western philosophers, I'm just saying that I don't like the distinction. Western tradition? if you can imagine something, there is going to be a philosopher who said that, and one who said the opposite, is nearly a rule. What you said should maybe prompt a rant against what made me said what I said. That is, people stupidity. Cause, yes, maybe some people "study" Buddhism, but at least the people I know, when they talk about budhism, they remind me to that kind of "Philosophy": Cosmetics.

(Believe me, you haven't seen one of my promts, there can be pages and pages there XD)

And why do they say "asian"?

I can't put a link to wikipedia, but there are lots of kinds of Buddhism, And there is that kind too. Ok. I was confused because of the "()" in the title. I thought "Asia is very big!, and of course Buddhism is from Asia!" But there is an "Eastern Asian Buddhism". My mistake.

-- Updated October 4th, 2016, 6:20 pm to add the following --

and Eastern or Western materialisms aren't different. *

[Sy Borg]

For one thing, many Eastern Buddhists believe in reincarnation as opposed to the idea that you cease to exist after bodily death from materialism.

It depends on what is meant by "you". If you are the reincarnation of someone who lived previously, in what way were "you" this person you've never known and know nothing about (and vice versa)? Where is the commonality? If the commonality lies in a spirit that knows nothing of prior or future incarnations, there would seem to be no meaningful connection. That just suggests that stuff takes form for a while, then it breaks down, and the stuff is released back into the system to do something else. That "something else" logically depends on one's final circumstances, especially environment just as any particle's future depends on current position, speed, direction and, especially, environmental conditions.

Consider the probability of someone being born who was similar to you in many respects - similar social and work inclinations, similar tastes and thought processes. Chances are that, at some time during history, there will be, or will have existed, people who are very much like you in the main ways that are usually thought to be meaningful. Since it's possible for two very similar people to live at one time, eg. identical twins, it would seem that common attributes are expressions of archetypes rather than individual reincarnations.

I could be wrong. We don't know what happens at the smallest and largest scales of reality so there's always going to be a "fish looking out of a bowl" situation. As a side note, it's been found that keeping goldfish in bowls in traumatic for the fish - totally exposed and powerless. Like us, in a way.

[Fooloso4]

TSBU:

Russia is in Asia, but at least in my country, when people talk about asian philosophy, they are never talking about Russian philosophers.

I doubt the course includes Russian philosophy. You are the one who brought up Russia. Who or what are you arguing against?

I'm just saying that I don't like the distinction.

You don’t have to like it. You do not have to use it, but such distinctions have their recognized use and purpose.

Western tradition? if you can imagine something, there is going to be a philosopher who said that, and one who said the opposite, is nearly a rule.

That does not mean that there is no Western philosophical tradition. A tradition is not a monolithic, unchanging, set of claims and assumptions. If you take a survey course on Western philosophy you are not going to focus on Confucius or Buddha, but most likely will read Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, Hume, etc. and find them referring to each other. Sometimes earlier philosophers even refer to latter philosophers, not by name but by anticipating certain claims or views.

What you said should maybe prompt a rant against what made me said what I said.

What made you say what you said is obviously your own assumptions based on a sense of the term materialism that might have nothing to do with what the OP said or what I said.

… maybe some people "study" Buddhism …

And some practice Buddhism, which is not the same as an academic study of Buddhism, although they are not mutually exclusive.

… but at least the people I know, when they talk about budhism, they remind me to that kind of "Philosophy": Cosmetics.

So then, your disagreement is with them, not with the author of the OP who is studying Buddhism or with me either.

… there are lots of kinds of Buddhism …

Yes, both the OP and I have made that point.

And there is that kind too.

It is not a kind but several different kinds or schools related by influence and geographic proximity. In any case, they are not part of the western tradition.

But there is an "Eastern Asian Buddhism".

Hence the value of using labels, however inexact or imperfect.

and Eastern or Western materialisms aren't different.

In order to determine whether that statement is correct you must first clarify what you mean by materialism. There are a variety of forms of materialism. For example: atomism, consumerism, dialectical materialism, physicalism. To further confuse matters we can distinguish various forms of physicalism, etc. But of course what you mean by materialism may be quite different than what the OP meant and so completely off the mark.

[Burning ghost]

I think he/she is asking you to do their home work assignment.

[TSBU]

Last post here.

Russia is in Asia, but at least in my country, when people talk about asian philosophy, they are never talking about Russian philosophers.

I doubt the course includes Russian philosophy. You are the one who brought up Russia. Who or what are you arguing against?

I'm just saying that I don't like the distinction.

It's simple. Asia includes Russia. If you say "asian" philosophy, it should include Russian philosophers. I'm arguing against seeing things by places.

You don’t have to like it. You do not have to use it, but such distinctions have their recognized use and purpose.

Western tradition? if you can imagine something, there is going to be a philosopher who said that, and one who said the opposite, is nearly a rule.

Yes, they have a purpose, a wrong one.

That does not mean that there is no Western philosophical tradition. A tradition is not a monolithic, unchanging, set of claims and assumptions. If you take a survey course on Western philosophy you are not going to focus on Confucius or Buddha, but most likely will read Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, Hume, etc. and find them referring to each other. Sometimes earlier philosophers even refer to latter philosophers, not by name but by anticipating certain claims or views.

(Nested quote removed.)

With both, because of different things. If everybody call "apple" to computers, then when I hear "apple" I will think in a computer and not in a fruit.

... and I'm tired. Thanks for the talk etc.

-- Updated October 5th, 2016, 5:47 am to add the following --

I made amess with quotes and I can't edit, but I think it's easy to understand.