To explain the differences between Buddhism and Eastern and Western philosophy, we must first compare Buddhism with Western philosophy, and then compare Buddhism with other Eastern philosophies.
The Differences Between Buddhism and Western Philosophy
Where, then, lies the difference between Buddhism and Western philosophy? It lies in the direction of cognition. Buddhist Dharma turns cognition inward, whereas Western philosophy directs cognition outward. Methodologically, this difference manifests most clearly in whether or not there is meditative absorption. Only with meditation—dhyāna or samādhi—does inward observation become possible. Yet among Western philosophers, almost none practice meditation. In fact, whether or not meditation is present is itself a key dividing line between Eastern and Western philosophy.
Western philosophy shares a common characteristic: it forcefully directs the six sense faculties outward to explore the external world. Science primarily develops the first five senses, while the mental faculty—the sixth sense—manifests as logic, mathematics, philosophy, sociology, and so on. In short, Western philosophy makes extensive use of all six faculties in an outward-facing way.
When it comes to using the first five senses to understand the world, the approach is to amplify their capacities as much as possible. For the eye faculty, there are radio telescopes; for the ear faculty, there are sonar and radar systems—often still relying on visual assistance. There may not yet be machines that can truly taste for us, but devices that detect smells do exist, such as smoke detectors that emit a loud alarm once smoke is sensed. Western philosophy continuously enhances the power of the five senses, expanding their range of detection—but all of this remains exploration directed outward toward the external world.
Buddhist philosophy, however, is different. It does not only investigate the external world—it also investigates the inner mind. To explore the mind, meditation is indispensable. Without meditation as a method, Western philosophers simply have no way to genuinely explore the inner world. As a result, some philosophers even resorted to hallucinogenic substances. This may sound surprising, but from Plato onward, and later sufigures ch as Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, many Western philosophers used such substances and even wrote about them in their works.
Similarities and Differences Between Buddhism and Other Eastern Philosophies
What, then, are the similarities and differences between Buddhist philosophy and other Eastern philosophies?
First, they all have meditation, and they all engage in exploration and cognition both inwardly and outwardly. However, their realized views differ, and this difference in view leads to differences in methods of practice, which in turn results in whether the investigation of the mind is thorough or not. From this perspective, Daoism and Hinduism, as Eastern philosophies, are actually quite formidable. Eastern philosophies also use the five sense faculties to explore the external world, but they do not posit an objectively existing external reality. Therefore, the way they employ the five faculties is generally to turn inward first, investigating the mind. Through meditation , supernormal abilities arise—such as the divine ear (divya-śrotra) and the divine eye (divya-cakṣus)—and these are then used to understand the external world. Most Eastern philosophies follow this general pattern.
Later, we will discuss the boundary between idealist and materialist philosophies. This topic is somewhat complex and full of technical terminology, so everyone should pay close attention. Moreover, when discussing philosophy, it must inevitably involve practice—otherwise, it becomes meaningless.
Second, Buddhist philosophy shares the same mode of observation as other Eastern religions, yet the conclusions drawn from that observation differ, resulting in differences in realized view. Here we are not talking about “conceptual views,” but about views that are directly realized through practice. Many religions use similar terminology when discussing the former. For example, Daoism also speaks of emptiness, and Hinduism, when speaking of Brahman—the ultimate reality and source of all things in Hindu thought—also describes it as formless and without characteristics. However, Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva’s understanding of emptiness (śūnyatā) is fundamentally different from Hinduism’s Brahman, and this difference necessarily manifests at the level of realized view.
To be honest, for genuine practitioners, these distinctions are not particularly important. A true practitioner only needs to study Buddhist philosophy. For example, once you understand Madhyamaka, and then grasp a method for practice and experiential verification, that is sufficient. When certain meditative experiences arise, you simply consult your teacher. The teacher will instruct you on how to avoid deviations and how to go deeper. Your teacher knows your habitual problems and knows exactly where you are stuck; he can remove those blockages for you—just as Chan Buddhism puts it, “pulling out the nail and removing the wedge.” Once that is done, clarity naturally increases, and that is enough.
However, from another perspective, if through Dharma sharing like ours one can understand very subtle key points of Buddhist philosophy, this can have a powerful effect on practice. Why is that? Because one defining characteristic of modern people is highly developed thinking.
Compared with ancient people, modern humans are physically far inferior. The bows left behind by Yuan-dynasty soldiers are so powerful that even today’s strongmen may not be able to draw them. However, in two respects, we absolutely surpass ancient people. The first is analytical thinking ability, and the second is resistance to toxins. The modern world is filled with toxins everywhere; even influenza viruses exist in far more varieties than in ancient times. If ancient heroes were brought into modern society— warrior-generals such as Zhang Fei and Yue Fei—there would be no need to fight them; a common cold might be enough to kill them. This shows that our resistance to toxins is relatively strong.
More important than anything else is our capacity for thinking. Strong thinking ability is a defining feature of modern people. Therefore, subtle and refined thinking can be of great help to spiritual practice. However, modern people are relatively weak in meditative concentration, and practice still requires deliberate training in meditation (samādhi).
Third, Buddhist philosophy is the only philosophy that can actually be realized. It does not remain merely at the level of conceptual thinking or terminology, nor does it, like Daoism, Brahmanism, or Hinduism—which also practice meditation—remain at ordinary, non-ultimate experiential states. Buddhist philosophy is able to fully unify view and realization. What does this mean? For example, materialism claims that the world is material, yet what matter actually is cannot be directly perceived (pratyakṣa). To this day, we still do not truly know what matter ultimately is.
What, then, is matter? In Chinese it is conceptually called “wùzhì,” in English “matter,” but matter is not merely a word. What it actually is, we still have not directly perceived with certainty. Today there is the law of mass–energy equivalence, which states that matter can transform into energy and energy into matter—this is quite similar to the Buddhist statement, “form is emptiness, emptiness is form” (rūpaṃ śūnyatā, śūnyatāiva rūpam; rūpa, śūnyatā). For ordinary people, energy is regarded as something non-substantial, merely a function or activity. But if substance itself is function, and function itself is substance, then is this not precisely what Buddhism means by “emptiness is form, form is emptiness”? Therefore, the materialist view is somewhat absurd: it cannot directly perceive what matter is, cannot verify what matter is, and thus its philosophy cannot be realized.
Within Eastern philosophy, for example, Daoism speaks of the Dao, Confucianism also speaks of the Dao, and Hinduism speaks of Brahman—including higher Brahman and lower Brahman. But can they actually see this Dao or Brahman? Can it be verified through direct experience? They claim that it can be realized, yet what they truly see as Dao or Brahman through direct perception is not consistent with their conceptual definitions of Dao or Brahman—that is, with their inferential cognition (anumāna). In their conceptual framework, realizing Brahman or the Dao is supposed to grant immortality and eternal continuation, but in reality, this does not occur. This means that their views cannot be substantiated through genuine realization.
By contrast, the emptiness taught in Buddhism is something that every living person can directly realize, provided their accumulations of merit and wisdom (puṇya-saṃbhāra and jñāna-saṃbhāra, puṇya, jñāna) are sufficient. Therefore, Buddhist philosophy is the only philosophy that can truly be fulfilled; it is a philosophy in which direct perception and inferential cognition are consistent. Why is this so? Theoretically, Buddhist philosophy includes Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, and Tathāgatagarbha, forming a complete and internally coherent system. In practice, it provides concrete methods to actualize these theories, such as Chan (Zen), Mahāmudrā, and Dzogchen. Buddhism is complete in both theory and practice.
This article is a preliminary translation draft and has not yet been reviewed or proofread by the speaker.
