I thought it was interesting how a debate between the Buddhist and Nyāya traditions very much reflects something I learned last year in AP Psychology.  A fundamental point of disagreement for Buddhists and Naiyāyikas is whether or not we, as humans, perceive the whole of an object, or simply the parts of an inferred whole.  Early Western psychologists had a similar debate; Gestalt theorists argued that the human brain interprets sight as perceiving whole objects, while structuralists believed that our vision only perceives parts that our brain composes into one whole.  I'm not entirely sure how these two schisms are related, but it seems to me that an identical conflict of ideas arose independently of each other to explain vastly different questions within different disciplines in different societies.

Throughout this class so far, it has been fascinating to see what kinds of connections we can draw between seemingly different things. Observing the abundant similarities between Eastern and Western religions has been helpful for overcoming my preconceptions of both varieties   Now, comparing these certain "religious universals" (ie. the desire to make sense of human perception) to other fields of study is deeply compelling and can even give us insight into the nature of human thought.