I'm unsure if I'm doing full justice to your post which is a bit long. Apologies if I miss good points. Sadly my response is longer still.
We must accept the cultural differences, which in Hindu terms equate somewhat to guna - characteristics. Though the characteristics of cultures may be merging now, yet they do have influence. I remember reading 'Tao of Physics', wherein Kapra acknowledges this. He says that the common methods of Hinduism will very unlikely appeal to a common western person. A common western man values individual achievements. A common easterner values contentment much more.
Well, matters of culture are shades of grey that are in constant flux, even without the marriage of traditions that has been occuring over hundreds and some cases thousands of year. Heck, the cultural diversity in India alone, is mind boggling. Imagine an
onion with many layers. Already, 20 seconds into such a conversation, one sees the limits of words and the
assumptions that words convey.
As for this idea about "contentment" vs "achievements", I'm unsure its actually true but again, how many cultures are we lumping together in our generalizations?
In my intereactions with easterners, from India and China, I didn't notice less focus on achievements but I think I saw differences in the focus on the
individual and on
family. Now, the average easterner isn't labeled as "devout" Hindu, Taosist or Budhist, so our shades of grey, grow greyer still
It is duty of the seeker to align, as well as he can, to this flow, so that joy is maximise
d. This is the point of ZenZero. Yet this point itself takes us to another aspect -- a practical one.
Joy is maximized for oneself or for the world around, or somehow both ... Therein lies a tricky distinction. :run:
How easy it is to break away from one's own tradition?
Well, as I explain above, its not easy to classify one's tradition, let alone to decide whether its worthy of being "broken away" from. Suffice to say, some people find additional inspirations in other traditions.
As a western Taoist, I've certainly learned much by reading the works of some monks, poets and wise people from eastern cultures. But to deny that I've learned wisdom from informed western sources would be dishonest and indeed for me to ignore a source because said source is western would be likewise insane.
Stereotypically, its said the easterner looks at the "whole" whereas the westerner looks at the parts. And yet,
thermodynamics is a science focused on looking at the whole rather than the parts.
Once we believe that the truth is one, in whatever name called, the traditional prescribed paths must be undestood to have come from that Truth and thus they must be honoured as much as is possible -- without denigrationg another path.
I agree mostly with a qualification. The "truth" is
multi-faceted and it has many sides.
I don't know if the story is Indian but during a course I was told about the 6 blind men who were describing an elephant.
What many westerners perhaps like about the Taoist philosophers was their ability to
shift perspectives.
Some teachers have indeed taught Pathlessness. Such as Jiddu Krishnamurty. But that teaching is applicable to his students and not to me. Even a single Guru prescribes differet medicines for different students.
Well, I think there is a huge power in the mediphor of a
grain of salt.
I certainly an open to the existence of other paths but with respect to medicine, I think that while traditional ideas may be useful in some contexts, (the ancients tried things and likely found a great deal of things that worked), I suspect that the sciences of
nutrition and
medicine provide the best framework to find these sorts of truths. Note: this is different that finding ways to "live better" and get health through happiness, excercise whatever. Science still has something to say about such things but
When I say I follow Tao, it doesn't commit me to follow the medicines of the 13th century T'ang dynasty or to follow palm reading, face reading, or whatever.
This however is not to discourage the westerner who is already in Tao or who follows Shankara -- rather the opposite. This is a call to take Guru earnestly. A call to honour the path in which providence has stationed one.
...
Perhaps a guru could be judged by the fruits of his teachings? I'm unsure.
What allows you to label one man "Guru" and another "unenlightened"? Therein lies a question not easily answered. Certain this question is illustrated by the large numbers of sects, some of which don't acknowledge the "truth" of the others.
As to the "path of providence", it becomes meaningless; i.e., whether it is "providence" or free will has no bearing to you. Its at another level above yours. It is impossible not to follow the path of providence.
Now, whether that path is "more western" or more "eastern" might depend on the actions one takes.
.
