Abstract
Following Marcel Granet and Joseph Needham’s explanation of the Chinese way of thinking, some Western scholars in the field of Chinese philosophy, including A. C. Graham, David Hall, and Roger Ames, regard the mode of thinking in some major ancient Chinese thinkers’ thought as nonanalytic, correlative, or mystic, which is essentially different from or incommensurable to an analytic, causal, or rational mode of thinking in the Western philosophical tradition. Similarly, some Asian scholars, such as D. T. Suzuki (▪) and Zongsan Mou (▪) think that the Buddhist nonanalytical wisdom (prajñā, ▪) in Zen (Chan, ▪) Buddhism and the way (dao, ▪) in ancient Daoism cannot be understood or interpreted with analytical language. They also claim that there is an essential difference between the way of thinking in Zen Buddhism or ancient Daoism, on the one side, and that in the Western philosophical tradition, on the other.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
