From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!munnari.oz.au!comp.vuw.ac.nz!cc-server4.massey.ac.nz!A.Raman Tue Mar 24 09:55:20 EST 1992
Article 4426 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!munnari.oz.au!comp.vuw.ac.nz!cc-server4.massey.ac.nz!A.Raman
>From: A.Raman@massey.ac.nz (Anand)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: mean,meaner,MEANING-est/ intention-and-self the buddhist way
Keywords: Long
Message-ID: <1992Mar12.060644.15876@massey.ac.nz>
Date: 12 Mar 92 06:06:44 GMT
References: <1992Mar6.183228.6118@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Mar10.004000.8828@norton.com> <1992Mar12.010517.23690@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: Massey University Computer Centre
Lines: 162

This article has nothing whatsoever to do with AI or with Philosophy.  It is
a response to some  recent postings that claim that  there  is such a  thing
called the "Western Outlook" which finds Eastern Ideas incomprehensible.   I
apologize   for posting  it   here, but  I  don't   know  everybody  who has
participated in this discussion so far also reads soc.history.

>... brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder) writes:
>>
>>"Locked in"?  Come off it.  Westerners have freedom to think and discover 
>>whatever they want.  It is the non-westerners (and I am using 'westerner' in
>>

There's been a  lot of talk  recently about `Western'  notions about  things
and a `Western' attitude to science.  Implicit in  these remarks is the fact
that free thought  is  a  purely western idea.   Needless to say these quips
annoy some people no  end, especially those  who don't believe  that  such a
dichotomy exists.

As a person who has lived on both sides of the  globe,  I have observed that
much as it is talked  about, there is  really  no  such  thing as a  Western
attitude.  I  have  seen  an equal number of  people  on both  sides  of the
globe   subscribe   to similar  opinions  about  life,   science and  dogma.
Some may  argue  that this is  because  in the twentieth   century,  Western
tradition  has  come to  have  a `fortunate' influence on  Eastern  culture.
But   historical  information  indicates  otherwise.    Sir Monier  Williams
notes, for example:

    "It will not,  of course, be supposed that  in our Eastern  Empire
     we have  to deal with  ordinary races of men.   We  are not there
     brought in  contact with savage tribes who  melt away  before the
     superior  force and intelligence  of  the Europeans.  Rather  are
     we placed  in the midst of  great and ancient  peoples, who, some
     of them tracing back their origin to the same stock as ourselves,
     attained a high degree of civilization  when our forefathers were
     still  barbarians,  and  had  a   polished language, a cultivated
     literature, and abstruse systems of  philosophy, centuries before
     the English existed even in name." [1]

Similar  remarks by eminent  historians regarding Chinese  and other Eastern
Civilizations are also not lacking.   The  Greeks certainly did not consider
Indian outlook backward.  In  fact, Diodorus  Siculus explicitly notes  that
the  tradition  of  Arranged  Marriages, for which   the   East and India in
particular  today is most frequently criticized  for, was totally foreign to
India during his time:

    "Now, it was an ancient law among the Indians  that when young men
     and maidens were minded to wed, they  did not marry  according to
     the judgement of their parents, but by mutual consent." [2]

If a conclusion should  at all be drawn from  history, it should be that the
so called Eastern tradition was actually Western, and vice  versa some years
ago,  or   that the  Westerners   learned  Freedom    of  thought  from  the
Easterners  through  the   Arabs   and    the  Greeks, while  simultaneously
imparting  their horrible  inhibitions   to  the  East.  I  certainly  don't
subscribe  to  that silly  opinion.   But  I request  that this  meaningless
dichotomy be put to rest for good.

The  obvious question  that springs  up  in this  context is   "Why then  is
there  so much poverty in  the   East and not   in the West?"  I don't  know
why, but as men of intelligence  and  discrimination  we have  learnt not to
blame poverty on  culture, just as  we know that  healthy  men of sound mind
do not get  sick   and die because they   believe that the  moon orbits  the
earth.

Also note that the Greeks never did see a  cleaveage in intellectual outlook
between themselves and the Egyptians or Indians.  If at all they did, it was
towards the Nordic blondes some of who  justifiably but paradoxically, today
have the same opinion about those who  thought so  about them  earlier on in
history.  Pliny the Elder notes in his Description of Taprobane (Sri Lanka):

    "They also informed us that the side  of  their  island which lies
     opposite  to  India  is  10,000   stadia  in  length,  and   runs
     south-east - that beyond the Hemodi  mountains, they look towards
     the Seres,  with  whom they had   become acquainted  by commerce,
     also that the father of Rachia had often  gone to  their country,
     and that these Seres came to meet their visitors on their arrival.
     These people, they said, exceeded the  normal stature of mankind,
     and had yellow hair and blue eyes; the tones of their voices were
     harsh and uncouth, and they could not  communicate their thoughts
     by language." [3]

Many people mistakenly assume that the most conspicuous  form  of philosophy
of a civilization  is  its only philosophy.  This  is absolutely wrong.  The
East has  seen the  birth and flourishing of an  equal  number  of radically
opposed  philosophies  as the West.   But since the  average Westerner feels
an  intrinisic   urge  to   observe   a distinction    between   himself and
impoverished    civlizations,  he   chooses     to   look   only upon    the
conspicuously  mistaken outlook as   a  birthmark of  that civilization.  If
the East were to adopt a similar strategy, it would be  like typecasting the
entire western world as a land that believes that  freedom comes from dyeing
one's hair pink.   As  we  know, this  is  clearly mistaken; but  it  offers
the east a convenient  handle on  the so called  Western  world.  There have
been philosophers    of   Reason,  Mysticism, Science,  Logic,  Selfishness,
Selflessness and many others, all  in the  Western  sense of the word,  just
as much in the East as in the West.

The very fact  that the Buddha chose to  ignore the concept  of God and  the
Immortal Soul  which  were predominant  at  his   time among the  Hindus  in
India should   be  a sufficient  indication   to  us that  he  was  far more
advanced  and  freer and his  thinking than most  "so called Westerners" are
today.   Much rational  thought, (I  say  that in  the  Western sense of the
word)  has gone  into  his  philosophy,  and  his words   can  be rationally
justified even today.

As the Buddha says:

    "Two ideas are very  deeply rooted  in human nature:  The first is
     the  idea of self-protection.   The second is  the idea  of self-
     preservation.  For  the first idea,  it invented  the  concept of
     God.  For   the second idea, it  invented  the concept  of  Soul.
     But we as [intelligent] men can choose  to  break free from these
     fetters realizing them to  be  unnecessary.  They  are hindrances
     to our pursuit after happiness." [4]

It would be  a pity  indeed, if we  were to reject his profoundly  pragmatic
conclusions based upon  a few sticky  mystic bits tacked  on to it  by later
philosophers. 

But, as Schrodinger notes in his essay "What is real?" (1960),

    "The more fine,  abstract,  sublime and subtle   a  faith  may be,
     so much more fearfully  does man's  weak, fainting spirit  snatch
     at miracles,  however foolish, to  be its  stay and support." [5]

Maybe some psychologists  could care to comment  on this; but I believe that
the reason some people  make such  an emphatic distinction between  the East
and West is because there is so much poverty in  the East.  Most of the East
is  filled with corpses of dead   civilizations.   And the paranoia of death
and the urge to live comfortably  inherent in  every man causes him  to seek
every possible difference between an impoverished country and his own.

We do  not yet know  why  a human body gets old  and dies.   Science has not
yet progressed to the stage when we can  determine the cause of  old-age and
natural death.   Just so,  we   don't know why entire civilizations   perish
after  reaching  peaks    of  great achievement.    Why   they    die,   why
individual units  of a composite being  cease  to co-operate in  producing a
harmonious whole  still befuddles   us.  But  meanwhile,  let us   not allow
forming a dogmatic opinion on  the matter deter our  search  for a cause for
old   age  and death.   Just  so,   let   us  not  allow  the   fact that  a
civilization is  defunct prevent  us from using some  of its   most precious
contributions to mankind  when it was  alive  and well.  If  Einstein  still
lived today  and was  senile, would that  prevent  us  from using his Theory
or Relativity?

Hope this helps.

Cheers!

- &

References:
~~~~~~~~~~~
[1]  Sir Monier Williams:  Indian Wisdom: Or examples of the religious,
        philosophical and ethical doctrines of the Hindus. (Oxford, 1875)

[2]  Diodorus Siculus, Book XIX: 30   (~3rd Cent, BC)

[3]  Pliny the elder: Natural History: Book VI  (~1st Cent BC)

[4]  Walpola Rahula: What the Buddha taught.  (Grove Press Inc. NY)

[5]  Erwin Schrodinger: What is Real? (1960). Concluding remark.


