So, the key part of Said's Orientalism is not just that "the West" created a particular image of "the East", but that there was a power differential involved and that this image of "the East" both was influenced by and deeply influenced European colonialism and imperialism.

Of course, ideas about the "other" are probably as old as our species (if not older), but this image of "the East" was an important ideological component of European colonialism and imperialism in Asia, both justifying colonialism and imperialism and shaping European policy and actions. That makes it difficult to compare with concurrent opinions in Asia of Europeans because they were (in the 19th century) largely on the one end of this power relationship with Europeans on the other.

Given that there wasn't a similar power imbalance in the reverse, it doesn't make a ton of sense to talk about "Occidentalism" as exactly equivalent to "Orientalism". You really can't ignore the context of power relationships between West and East (and consequently the context of colonialism and imperialism) when you are looking at Orientalism.

Now, you can definitely talk about what kinds of ideas "the East" had about Europeans, but I am not qualified to speak on that and hopefully someone else does address that. I just want to point out that while "Orientalism" and "Occidentalism" (if that is even really a valid concept) are both fundamentally about imagining the "other", you shouldn't necessarily think of them as equivalents because each exists within a specific historical and social framework (particularly in regards to power relationships) that make them distinct.

Edit: The long and short is: "Orientalism" isn't just an artistic/philosophical movement and was embedded in a system of colonialism and imperialism, so it isn't exactly equivalent to "Eastern" perceptions of "the West", but I do hope someone else can help you out with what those perceptions were even if they aren't analogous!

Late Edo and Meiji-era Japan would be a good example of this. The Japanese considered themselves on the one hand culturally superior to the westerners, as evidenced by the Sonno Joi (尊皇攘夷 )movement, "expel the barbarians and revere the emperor", the naming conventions referring to westerners in Japanese as "Yabanjin" (野蛮人), or barbarians, or even the many woodblocks from the time depicting the Europeans and Americans in grotesque caricature like fashion.

On the other hand we have the Japanese sense of societal and technological inferiority to the West, with numerous missions being sent to western countries to study technology and foreign advisers being brought in to modernize Japanese institutions. Even Japanese fashion changed rapidly in this period to more closely emulate that of the west, with beards and western dress being highly in vogue by the time of the Russo-Japanese war.

I suppose if one were to say that the Europeans depicted "Orientals" as philosophical, exotic barbarians, it could equally be argued that the Japanese depicted "Occidentals" as technologically superior, exotic barbarians, to be emulated in measure but also derided.

In the 1790s, a British entourage including the first envoy to China was dismissed, after being humoured, likewise with the next envoy sent to open trade in the early 19th century. Since China is the Middle Kingdom, everywhere else is necessarily peripheral; backward and uninteresting, societies not civilisations, with too little substance to wring out a pop mythos like Orientalism. For the near Orient's Occidentalism, Ahmad ibn Fadlan is characteristic in his dismissal of Europe and its dirty inhabitants, who were stupid, being undercooked (incidentally Africans were stupid, being overcooked, and Arabs just right). This image of Europe as the sick heathen of the flat earth was an important ideological component of Oriental colonialism and imperialism, most obviously in the Iberian conquests, both justifying colonialism and imperialism and ultimately shaping the policy of al-Andalus. I'd go as far as saying there was a power differential involved. Another reason is that Orientalism was a marketing strategy exploiting the benighted British consumer, cargo-cultish in attitude where 'the Orient', and products therefrom were concerned. Britain operated a trade deficit with China, and a substantial volume of nominally British goods was produced in India, explaining the stronger, earlier presence of the East, distorted/manipulated/romanticised by distance, in the West than vice versa.