I think I am going to throw shit in the pot and piss in the cheerios. I think that not only is eastern thought not superior, I find it inferior. I think it's weak and way behind western philosophy. Why? Because Eastern philosophy is statement philosophy. It makes a conclusion, but doesn't give you any background. You have to figure out why its true. Further, if you think it's incorrect, you are wrong because you haven't thought about it enough. Hog-fucking-wash.
That is not to say that Eastern Philosophical tenets are wrong, though I have heard a few in the past that are questionable. It's that it's a colossal waste of time. I don't mean that in the sense that it's useless I mean it in the sense that it literally takes to much time to derive anything meaningful from it. You get a statement, and then you have to think about whether or not it's true and then why. It's a fine exercise if you have the time, BUT you can only glean so much wisdom. That is why I feel western philosophy is superior. Western philosophy makes arguments and the arguments have a place for validity and it is clear when and where it's valid. It spells it all out, you don't have to guess an be wrong. While in Eastern philosophy you are still enamored with inner peace and how every thing is connected, Western philosophy is way past that. We know every thing is connected, we know in many cases what and how and we are trying figure out why. We can separate and isolate things, we can analyze the thoughts and share those thoughts with others and gain more perspective. Eastern, you have to meditate, listen and speak every little....Yeah, that's great. You get very little discussion and introspection is pretty damn useless. Further when you've figured it all out, you get to find out it's already been done before.
Western philosophy lays it all out before you, it tells you everything that's been thought of before, so you don't have rediscover it and you can move it further along. Eastern philosophy advances very little.
I'll give an example of what I am talking about. So you have Aristotle and Confucius. Aristotle wrote everything out in detail and is indeed the father of logic. However, over the centuries people have advanced his theories and though Aristotle is still relevant, his philosophies have grown and moved to heights he never dreamed of. Aristotle's stuff was matured and developed and studying him is not enough to know about where we are in the modern day with philosophy. Confuciusian though has advance very little and he is still to relevant to Eastern philosophy. It's not because it's super bloody brilliant, it's because it's introspective and there is not much to build on.
While modern philosophy is on to studying how particle physics could potentially be butting up against metaphysics as a transition point.
Eastern philosophy is still dealing with shit like this ~ "We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves." Really? How do you know? To a western philosopher, there are 4 thoughts going on here, not one. Each one demands an explanation at least to their likely truth.
Western philosophy is more advanced, better laid out and conceived. It think it's way superior.