The primary difference between East and West, in the sense of ancient and modern, and by extension, rational and irrational, is “Who,” rather than “it.” This is the key to understanding this world and the next. This distinction is the be and end all of all topics.

The ancients believed that all life was alive, animate, and in a sense, sentient. To the extent that a culture and a society is traditional, they believe this. Laurens Van Der Post speaks of this in his wonderful book, Heart of the Hunter. Other good thoughts about this is the writing of Martîn Prechtel, Secrets of the Talking Jaquar; Claude Levi Bruhl, Participation Mystique, Mircea Eliade, the Sacred & the Profane; and ER Dodds, “The Greeks and the Irrational.”

We must remember that at the core, Christianity and in fact all religions, are irrational.

my experience in India - that which is not understood.

That person is simply there - rationality is a one step process.

Some rationality involves or rather requires step after step. Say, Socratic Logic; or mathematical theorems.

If Helen is standing before me, I see her there. Obviously. she is there. One can argue fluff about it, but she is there. This might be called elementary rationality. it is of a different type and use. Encountering a “who” - Helen, is an obvious given. It does not require what is usually thought to be intellectual rationality. One can be this side of the Cartesian split.

A thing that is animate in this way may be good or evil. Just like any being we encounter in the world - they may be good people or a criminal. there is a confusion - “spirits” are not necessarily good.