[igravious]

Perhaps because the "model" we have in the West of ourselves is more-or-less a dualistic model: mind/body. I guess that people in the West consider yoga involving poses to target the body and practices like meditation to target the mind. That would then cover "everything" as far as we'd see.

There is the notion embedded in Western culture that the seat of consciousness (which many equate with the self) is contained within the Mind somewhere. We have a mostly pop cultural understanding of the mind with a good dash of Freud-speak. I think that experimental psychology and neuroscience are increasingly important as sources of understanding for the mind.

In the West, also, I figure that wisdom is pursued through religion or the arts/literature/cinema/etc. or philosophy.

I think that most in the West see energy as part of the scientific domain of things. I realise that many don't but I'm going to discount this group as pre-scientific and/or not scientifically literate and/or superstitious.

I guess what you mean by Bliss is what the Buddhists mean by Elightenment? I can't think of a direct analog for this state in Western culture. If you could tell me more I'd answer this better.

Short answer. Western culture and science is resistant to the model you are putting forward. That's why. Be happy to debate any of this further.

[nzp]

> I guess what you mean by Bliss is what the Buddhists mean by Elightenment?

Although in Buddhism there is at some point the attainment of bliss (as a factor in the first jhana[0]) the goal is to let go of that bliss and go beyond. The next step in yoga is the realisation of atman, while in Buddhism the goal, Enlightenment (which is much better translated as "Awakening") it is the very opposite--the realisation of anatman (non-self). So they're not really compatible. In fact Buddhism is doctrinally sharply opposed to all strands of Vedic thought and practice.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jhana

[hosh]

These differences are superficial and skin-deep. The mystics of both East and West are more in agreement than the the scribblers of scripture. One of the common threads, East or West, is that "self" is not Self (Atman).

Bliss is not what the Buddhists mean by Enlightenment, though it is in the same general "area". The most obvious Western equivalent in that same area is the term, "Gnosis".

[wallflower]

Re: Bliss

I think it is along the same levels of Enlightenment.

"Our egos very often keep us from being our best selves" -Karen Armstrong

I think materialism is the short-term fix to some problems that we all have. Nothing is black or white. We are all consumers, in some form. I think true happiness comes from producing and giving more, especially when there is no monetary compensation or stress tied to the giving or producing. E.g. a real hobby

[igravious]

Ah. In Western philosophy there is talk about attaining 'happiness' or even 'true happiness' but it does not surface much, I am open to correction here.

I totally dig Karen Armstrong, I have two of her books :)

I think Western culture is absorbing these Eastern ideas about not identifying with our thoughts and emotions, that you can acknowledge that 'you' (whatever that is) have thoughts and emotions but that they don't have to define you. I would be extremely interested in seeing if this way of thinking has been advocated in Western philosophy prior to now. Prayer in religion may come close?

An interesting advance on this I have seen recently is the social model of human interaction. By which I mean, we are not a duality: physical and psychological beings but a triad: physical, psychological, and social. To achieve 'happiness' or 'wellness' or 'enlightenment' or 'bliss', call it what you will (I know they are not strictly synonymous) that you'd have to work on all three: the body (exercise or yoga poses or ...), the mind (meditation or mindfullness or ...), society (? charity? other virtuous acts?)

Food for thought indeed :)

[dragonwriter]

> In Western philosophy there is talk about attaining 'happiness' or even 'true happiness' but it does not surface much, I am open to correction here.

It surfaces more in a religious context; perhaps another East-West difference that is relevant here is the separation between secular philosophy and religion.