Buddhism & Stoicism
A Conversation Among Stoics
The following is a discussion that was held on the International Stoic Forum from late August to early September of 2007. It has been edited for formatting, spelling, relevancy, and organization. Obviously, this being a conversation, not everything here would necessarily be in agreement with my views. Participants were asked permission for their inclusion here, and some names have been omitted upon request. Please contact me if you are included below and have since decided not to be included here, or to have your name omitted. Many thanks to everyone who contributed to this discussion and to the creators and moderators of the International Stoic Forum.
ORIGINAL POST
Charles:
Hello Stoics and students of Stoicism:
Perhaps this has been discussed here before, and so please forgive me if it has and I'm not remembering. (I'm not always privileged with the proper time to pay enough attention to everything on this discussion group:))
That being said, I'm wondering if people here might have any initial (or already well thought-out) notions about where to look/turn for investigating connections/dialogue between Buddhism and Stoicism. A colleague of mine is interested, and this has renewed the spark of interest I once had in this (but did not pursue at the time).
So any thought on this are welcomed (both historical and thematic), including reading suggestions.
Jan (to Charles):
I am sure it has been discussed before, but probably a (relatively) long time ago. Last I looked, however, the complete archives were still available at the "stoics" site at yahoogroups.com (groups.yahoo.com, maybe). These archives are searchable.
But it would not hurt to discuss the topic again--the Forum has had many new members (and lost older members).
What I know about Buddhism is limited to brief conversations with my Religious Studies colleagues, interacting with Unitarian Universalists who consider themselves Buddhists, reading popular treatments (years ago) by Alan Watts and recently by writer Karen Armstrong, whose book on the Axial Age, The Great Transformation I just finished reading, and some discussions of Buddhist ideas in introductory philosophy textbooks.
Among the differences between Buddhism and Stoicism, I think we can note:
* The original teaching of Buddha (so far as we are able to discover it) was essentially ethical; it had a psychological component that served the ethical (like Stoicism) but it was uninterested in theorizing about nature as a whole.
* The original teaching of Buddha was nontheistic. One can easily be a Buddhist and an atheist. Although some of us in this list may be agnostics or humanists or even atheists, there is plenty of evidence that theology (an account of Zeus and his relationship to us, to nature as a whole, etc.) was an important part of classical Stoicism; the classical Stoics were theists.
* Compassion was very important for the Buddha--I guess it is still very important for Buddhists. With its doctrine that we should eradicate the passions, which are equated with violent feelings and judgments contrary to reason (both physical and cognitive aspects, then), Stoicism either cannot get to compassion or has to get to it in a rather roundabout way, which I'd be happy to discuss later. (The Roman Stoic Seneca does have some positive things to say about humanitas, which seems to be a virtue bordering on compassion, but that may be a reflection of a current in ancient
* Buddhists seem to try to deconstruct the notion of the self, as part of the problem (almost like Hume in the Treatise on Human Nature); the Stoics, especially as exemplified by Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, try to turn the self into an invulnerable fortress, by reducing it to the capacity for assent or non-assent to impressions, the prohairesis.
* If Buddhism incorporates meditative techniques characteristic of the Indian tradition, Stoicism may not have had access to these.
Buddhists and Stoics may be in agreement that desire may be a big part of the problem. But if the Buddhists think that desire is the whole problem, the Stoics say, no; desire (lust, epithumia) is one of four categories of passions that, collectively, are the key to the problem. (The other three are fear, distress, and delight.) But the four genera of passions are conceptually related to each other, so maybe there is little difference here: Fear is the judgment that things out of our control about to happen are bad, while desire is the judgment that things out of our control about to happen are good.)
Paul (to Jan):
I was reading a book by the Dalai Lama recently which briefly discussed the Buddhist concept of compassion, and it struck me as very similar to oikeiosis. If I recall properly, he wrote that compassion for him consisted in recognising that other people are human beings like him and treating them accordingly. I thought at the time that this would not be a passion, but rather a feeling of endearment for others as fellow world citizens and sparks of the divine.
Robin Turner (to Paul):
That's the impression I got too. The problem is that without entering deeply into Buddhist training, I couldn't really know what kind of attitude/feeling they mean, since all a novice Buddhist could hope to achieve would be a kind of proto-compassion (analogous to what someone here described as "pro-eupatheia"). I think that Buddhists regard the pathetic variety of compassion as a precursor to the genuine quality: the aim is not to burst into tears when you see a puppy being kicked, but if you are the kind of person who from the start would feel nothing in such a situation, you're not going to make any progress at all.
Londonstoic (to Charles):
I guess the obvious point of similarity is the idea that our opinions and judgments of external events are the source of emotional and spiritual problems and solutions. Mind is the key.
So the Dhammapada says, in the first sutra on mindfulness, 'he insulted me, he wronged me, he offended me...the person who thinks this way will never have a mind free of anger'. which parallels with the stoic exercises on overcoming resentment towards others.
So mindfulness is key to both philosophies. they have different techniques for cultivating it - meditation is more important in Buddhism, while stoicism uses techniques like recalling your actions at the end of the day.
Both believe that we can cultivate detachment to our thought process, and learn to change them. both believe overcoming attachment and aversion to external things is crucial to one's spiritual health.
Both are ways of accepting impermanence. the idea that everything external changes, and that spiritual maturity involves coming to accept this, is at the heart of both philosophies.
So too is the idea that philosophy is not a question just of beliefs, but of active cognitive practices. both use the metaphor of the sage as doctor.
And I think there is a similarity in the stoic notion of logos and the Buddhist notion of Buddha nature. this is the idea that our deepest personality in stoicism is, in fact, the Logos - we go through the personal, to the cosmic or universal. we realize our identity with the world soul, we realize how our mind connects to all minds, to the one Mind.
That's similar to the idea in Buddhism that our deepest nature is Buddha nature, universal, connected to all, and illuminated with awareness. so, I don't know, maybe we could say that both actually involve going beyond the self, beyond the ego or 'I', towards accepting the cosmos as our true nature, so recognizing that we have nothing external to defend ourselves against, only to defend ourselves against our own unwise thoughts.
Thus this is what the Buddha says on mind in the third sutra of the Dhammapada:
Knowing the corporeal body to be fragile, as an earthen jar, and fortifying the mind like a citadel, let the wise man fight Mara with the sword of wisdom. He should now protect what he has won, without attachment.
which we can compare to Aurelius' famous comment: The mind which is free from passions is a citadel, for man. has nothing more secure to which he can fly.
One of the biggest differences between the two is the Buddhists' acceptance of reincarnation. as far as I know, stoics didn't believe in it. or did they? not sure. Aurelius was an initiate in the mysteries of
Connected to that, Buddhists believe that what happens to us is not the will of God, but the karma from our own past thoughts and actions (including actions in past lives). so you accept 'bad' things which happen to you not [because] god wills it, but because you are responsible for it.
Finally, Buddhists have a much stronger emphasis on the Sangha, or holy community, while stoicism seems to have been more of an individual pursuit, it seems to me, though I may be wrong.
An interesting place to look in your investigations is in the fusion of stoic and Buddhist techniques in modern cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Albert Ellis, who recently died, was working on a book about CBT and Buddhism when he died, and Aaron Beck, the other founder of CBT, has written widely on CBT's similarity to Buddhism.
Amos (to Charles):
One thing that Buddhism and Stoicism have in common on a very general level is that they are both "it's up to you" disciplines. In neither is there a savior or a sacrament or a therapist or anything outside your own right effort that can help you. Both of them expect you to work on changing your way of living in order to achieve greater freedom. Be well, Amos
Jan (to Amos):
Yet "making progress" in both Buddhism and Stoicism has a social component, where some (e.g., Seneca, Musonius Rufus, Epictetus) put themselves in a position where they are reasoning with, and exhorting or urging on, individuals who they think may be open to the philosophical message; Buddhism has something similar, does it not?
In fact, all of the major Hellenistic philosophies of which I am aware, had this element; Christianity, as a movement that has to "reason with" its own members to keep their allegiance or "deepen their faith" (see the letters of Paul), seems to borrow this aspect from its gentile environment. There are structural similarities between Paul's letters and Epictetus' Discourses (both use the form of diatribe, pronounced "di-a-tree-bay") that reflect this fact.
Conversant #1 (to Jan):
Yes, Buddhism does have a similar practice.
It is customary at meditation and ceremonial gatherings for the teacher, senior student, or elder to give a "dharma talk," a sermon of sort on one topic or another, depending on the particular sect. This is for Theravada, Mahayana, and Tibetan. Certainly it's the customary practice here in the
The content would vary - neither Shin nor Nichiren address the same concerns as Zen or Vipassana. For general audiences one would expect an exhortation to follow the Buddha's path, stick with the fundamentals, practice the tenets of the sect, and exert oneself to the best of one's ability. For monks or those on a meditation retreat, the talk may be a discussion of certain points of practice.
Amos (to Jan):
Yes, Buddhism, especially Mahayana Buddhism (which includes Tibetan Buddhism and Zen), has a strong social component. The student must strive for the enlightenment of all sentient beings. My point is that in both Stoicism and Buddhism, there is no Mary full of grace, no therapist who will solve all your problems for you, no magic pill that will make your depression disappear. Both disciplines outline a path (a metaphor), which includes duties towards others, especially compassion in the case of Buddhism and it is up to you, your responsibility to follow that path. The student does the work of inner transformation, not the grace of God or your transference relation to a therapist. Be well, Amos
Conversant #1 (to Amos):
That's not exactly true. There is a savior of sorts in some expressions of Buddhism.
The
The core idea is that no matter how long and hard one meditates, one cannot free oneself of many lifetimes of accumulated karma. So one hitches a ride, so to speak, with a Buddha. Still, strong faith is a vital component; it's not a free ride.
(This is a rather poor summary of
(Speaking of references, for a discussion of the social component of Ch'an, the Chinese precursor of Zen, I highly recommend Peter Hershock's _Liberating Intimacy: Enlightenment and Social Virtuosity in Ch'an Buddhism_ and _Chan Buddhism_.)
Compassion isn't necessarily a part of Buddhist practice. It's not emphasized in Zen, as far as I'm aware (see Brad Warner's _Hardcore Zen_) but is incorporated in so-called American Vipassana (a.k.a. "Insight Meditation). Have a look at Sharon Salzberg's books on Metta, along with most anything by Jack Kornfield.
One really can't speak broadly of Buddhism except in reference to the Four Noble Truths, Noble Eightfold Path, and perhaps the Dhammapada. Over great distances and many centuries Buddhism developed in ways that I'm sure would be quite startling to Gautama.
Other than those points, I'm in agreement with Amos.
Amos (to Conversant #1):
You're certainly right that Buddhism is perhaps more varied than Christianity, and that there are sects where Buddha becomes a savior. I was generalizing from my limited knowledge of Soto Zen. In the varieties of Soto Zen which I know there is great emphasis placed on compassion and on social concerns, especially non-violence, but as you say, Buddhism, at least in Western countries, offers a flavor for every taste.
Conversant #1 (to Amos):
I'm not sure if Buddhism is more varied than Christianity. There's quite a range between Quakers and Eastern Orthodox Catholic Christians.
To its credit, the Japanese Soto Zen organization apologized for its conduct during WW II.
For a rather chilling peek at one dark side of Buddhism, see Brian Victoria's "Zen at War". Zen monks marching in formation with rifles slung over robed shoulders makes an unforgettable image.
Amos (to Conversant #1):
I'm not sure whether Buddhist is more varied than Christianity either. Could we agree that they're both varied?
Yes, it's to the credit of the Japanese Soto Zen organization that they apologized for their conduct during World War 2...
DT Strain (to Conversant #1):
This reminds me of an aspect I've been meaning to bring up: Compassion. On this matter, I have two distinct questions...
1) Stoicism vs Buddhism where Compassion is concerned:
This might be an area of big difference. Compassion is central to Buddhism - loving kindness to all living beings. I'm curious as to how this compares to Stoicism. We have to be very careful about matching up words that may have very different substantive meanings here, and focus on the concepts behind the words so as to avoid confusion. I'm not certain how the two approach the concepts surrounding compassion. In one respect, that sort of talk seems too emotional for Stoicism. However, when we look at the notions about detachment in Buddhism this seems quite compatible with Stoicism. So, clearly, Buddhist compassion doesn't seem to be leading to pathos. What's going on here with regards to the concept of compassion between these two philosophies?
2) Compassion and Buddhism where violence is concerned:
Compassion is so central to Buddhism that nonviolence is a common theme, some Buddhists are vegetarians, and many schools and monks avoid even the killing of insects. Most people today view Buddhism as one of the most peaceful of the major religions. But how does this relate to the Samurai and WWII soldiers who were Buddhists? What were the details of their philosophical arguments that somehow allowed violence and Buddhism to not only co-exist, but be so integrated in the lives of these warriors?
Sophia (to DT Strain):
DT Strain wrote:
1) Stoicism vs Buddhism where Compassion is concerned: This might be an area of big difference. Compassion is central to Buddhism - loving kindness to all living beings. I'm curious as to how this compares to Stoicism.
[Sophia provides a Wikipedia link to Stoic 'brotherhood': LINK HERE]
DT Strain wrote:
We have to be very careful about matching up words that may have very different substantive meanings here, and focus on the concepts behind the words so as to avoid confusion.
I too at times wonder if "compassion" might not be the correct English translation for the Buddhist concept that is commonly translated as such.
DT Strain wrote:
I'm not certain how the two approach the concepts surrounding compassion. In one respect, that sort of talk seems too emotional for Stoicism.
I think you're misunderstanding the Buddhist concept of compassion, then. It doesn't involve an emotional reaction. Just a commitment to do what is in your power to help relieve the suffering of others.
Londonstoic (to DT Strain):
Sure, Buddhist monks can be violent, sexually abusive, even nationalistic; particularly when they are a politically powerful group as in
Conversant #1 (to Londonstoic):
Sure they can.
Lama Chogyam Trungpa ("Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism," et. al.) was a notorious drinker and womanizer. I've already mentioned scandals in the Zen Buddhist communities.
I've known wonderful gentle Catholic priests that wouldn't hurt a fly, and known abusive alcoholic priests.
Do keep in mind that one doesn't necessarily join a monastery for religious reasons. Sometimes it's an economic necessity, or a family obligation. Monks are not necessarily motivated by a quest for holiness, in whatever form.
That's true for Western monks - and clergy in general - as well. Not all religious are truly religious.
Obvious, of course, but seems worthwhile re-stating.
Steve (to Conversant #1):
Of course. Character, not what one labels one’s beliefs, is what counts. We could do some kind of statistical social study and quantify which Tradition produces the highest quantity of good character I suppose but that misses the point.
One must have the genuine desire for self improvement and then almost any therapy will work. But, the better one knows oneself (and the more options one has in one’s culture) the better choice one could make about which Tradition to follow. The more progress we make I think the closer we have to match our chosen path to our personality type. This is why I reject the notion of the _one_ correct path altogether. I still stand by my assumption that claiming mutual exclusivity to the truth for one’s belief system is detrimental overall, a discussion I wasn’t able to finish with Grant some time ago. What is the best one in the moment for you is the one that motivates you the most to make positive progress right now. And that is most likely to change in the course of a lifetime. Don’t get stuck in a rut :). If this seems more pragmatic than noble you bet it is.
(By progress I mean a better person, not going to heaven or getting off of the wheel of life).
Sophia (to Charles):
A friend of mine suggested that the main difference between the two philosophies is the emphasis that Buddhism places on reincarnation.
Conrad (to Sophia):
I would say that the primary difference is that Buddhism claims that the material world does not exist, while Stoicism claims that it is the only thing that does. It seems--to me, at least--that all other differences stem from that basic divergence.
Sophia (to Conrad):
This is the first I have ever heard of a Buddhist claim that the material world does not exist.
And, for that matter, the Stoic idea that the material world is the *only* thing that exists definitely isn't the idea I got from the Enchiridion of Epictetus.
Conrad (to Sophia):
Sophia wrote:
This is the first I have ever heard of a Buddhist claim that the material world does not exist.
Note that I come from a decidedly Theravadin bias when I approach Buddhism, as I very nearly became a Theravada monk a long time ago. That school is generally considered the closest modern equivalent to the original Buddhism founded by the Buddha. (Of course, my bias may be--scratch that, almost certainly is--showing in that assessment.)
Also note that Buddhism arises from Hinduism, inasmuch as the Buddha grew up in a Hindu society. One of the basic Hindu tenets is that the world is Maya, or illusion (Samkhya aside, anyway). From this comes the Buddhist notion of impermanence, and the notion that nothing impermanent can truly be said to be real. Also, the notion that enlightenment is the realization that the self does not exist.
As one moves further temporally, and generally further East, from the birth of Buddhism, one encounters more popular and Mahayanist forms of Buddhism. Being popular, these tend to focus, outside of the monastery at least, on karma and good works leading to good things in life. Lay Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism is possibly the most extreme example of this.
There are exceptions, of course. Zen is focused rather heavily on monasticism and renunciation of worldly things, and yet generally affirms the material world's existence. However, Zen still holds that the true reality is sunyata, or emptiness.
Sophia wrote:
And, for that matter, the Stoic idea that the material world is the *only* thing that exists definitely isn't the idea I got from the Enchiridion of Epictetus.
Interesting. It's decidedly the impression I got. See also M Aurelius' mentions of death being the end of existence and
It just occurred to me that I might also have said that the difference is that Buddhism considers our senses to always be lying to us, whereas Stoicism considers them to be generally reliable. That would be an equally valid (and equally semi-correct) "sound byte" pointer to my opinion on a very complex subject.
Jan (to Sophia):
The Encheiridion distinguishes between things not in our control and things in our control, the latter pertaining to our moral character or power of assent to impressions. It does not say that the latter is an immaterial thing. (The Stoic tradition was quite capable of conceptualizing reason as a material force.)
The Encheiridion also distinguishes between Zeus and the rest of us--at least implicitly--but what was just said about reason applies to Zeus, too.
There is a tendency to think of matter as passive and mind as active, but this does not seem to have been the Stoic view. If Epictetus was out of the Stoic mainstream on this issue, there is no direct evidence of this in the texts (of which I am aware).
Stephen (to Sophia):
As I recall, Buddhists do hold that the empirical world is in constant flux. This includes the empirical self. Hence the central doctrine of 'no self' (anatta).
In this respect, I think Buddhists and Stoics may have faced a similar problem. If one delimits the empirical self to the awareness or moral intention of the present moment, where is the 'thickness' that allows one to speak of a moral self at all?
Robin (to Stephen):
I am no expert on this subject, but my limited reading of Indian philosophy left me with the strong impression that to the ancient Indian mind (to the extent that we can speak of such a thing) only that which is unchanging is real. This is rather like the Greek idea of ousia ("essence") taken a step further. Plato gets round the problem by positing a multitude of unchanging Forms; most Hindu philosophy grants reality to Atman (soul) though not always to the material world (since the latter is in flux, while the former only seems to change); Buddhists do away with even that. So when Buddhists say that the world is an illusion (maya), I think what they are saying is simply that it is has no immutable essence.
Jan (to Stephen):
I believe D. N. Sedley published an article some time ago on the Stoic conception of the individual. (I don't have time to look it up now, sorry.) But the classical Stoics did not think that the self only existed in the moment.
I admit you might get that impression from Epictetus' emphasis on what is in our control as truly ours, and what is not in our control as not-ours. But our current moral dispositions result, deterministically, from, among other things, our prior actions, which are no longer in our control. The current moral dispositions determine whether we judge well or badly NOW. Our choices now are ours--or up to us--because they flow from our current moral character, which reflects our current moral dispositions.
(At least that's my best judgment about the Stoic view on this matter.)
Amos (to Stephen):
While Buddhists believe that the self is a constant flux (anatta), the flux is not a random process, but one of cause and effect. That is, the self at moment 1 causes the self at moment 2. Hence, the idea of karma, that one's past actions cause one's present state, even in another life. So there is a moral continuity in the flux. One is a moral agent although the self has no thickness, because each instant of self produces the next. Be well, Amos
Stephen (to Amos and Jan):
Putting Jan's and Amos' answers together, it seems that the Stoics and Buddhists offer roughly the same solution to the problem I posed. The self or character of the moment is determined (although perhaps not completely) by one's kamma or prior actions.
My reference to the Stoic delimitation of the self to the present moment stems from my reading of Pierre Hadot's 'Inner Citadel'. Perhaps Hadot overstated the case. It does seem to me, however, that both Stoicism and Buddhism emphasized the 'thin-ness' of the self to promote detachment, but had to 'thicken' it to defend moral responsibility.
DT Strain (to Charles):
Theravada Buddhism is where I would think most similarities with Stoicism would lie. But it's the Theravada Buddhism that is *most* concerned with this world, whereas the latter schools moved into something that sounds a little more like dualism (my biased description would say, "more superstitious").
Even with Theravada however, there is a huge difference between saying that we suffer from illusion and saying that the material world doesn't exist. In fact, the Buddha specifically focused his teachings on this world (see parable of the broken arrow) and not on other worldly things. The entire Buddhist view of how existence operates is discussing the ebb and flow of matter in a causal nexus. It seems to me that it is almost entirely about the material world. However the ancients didn't delineate these concepts into material and immaterial exactly in the manner we do today, which is where I think much of the confusion comes.
I have been told by a Buddhist monk that Buddhists do not believe that the material world is not real. Rather, they speak of illusions we have about it. For example, the 'self' is an illusion precisely because it is an aggregate of many parts interacting through cause and effect. Without using modern physics or cognitive science terms, you couldn't describe the self more accurately that this - and it's just as a functionalist would (and an empiricist functionalist at that, given the Kalama Sutra's teaching on the importance of evidence-based beliefs).
Other illusions would be things like "chair". These are abstractions of patterns of aggregates. If we understood and intuitively saw the world as it was, we wouldn't get so caught up in all these abstract labels, and rather see the cause and effect relationships between materials and events as they are without bias. When you read explanations of illusion, they always reference to real things in our world - that is a far cry from saying that the material world is not real. This is not a philosophy of escapism or about claims there is some invisible magical realm over the rainbow. Buddhism is a philosophy specifically designed to better understand and live in our world - at least, the Buddhism I've been exposed to over the past several months.
I think people see phrases like "glimpse reality" and "illusion" and superimpose a Western dualism into their interpretation. Something like that might exist in the later schools, but I'm not convinced it's a part of original Buddhism (as far as we can determine it).
Conrad (to DT Strain):
DT Strain wrote:
Theravada Buddhism is where I would think most similarities with Stoicism would lie.
This, I agree with entirely, hence my personal journey from Buddhist to Stoic.
DT Strain wrote:
But it's the Theravada Buddhism that is *most* concerned with this world, whereas the latter schools moved into something that sounds a little more like dualism (my biased description would say, "more superstitious").
Hmmm... I agree with this, depending on the definition of "this world". I disagree with you that "this world" for Theravadin Buddhists is a fundamentally material world. All physical things are ephemeral, and therefore not truly real in the Hindu/Buddhist view. Instead, it is the spiritual (the
By this, I don't mean to imply a Western dualism. The key here is that the material world is merely a misunderstanding of the actual world. The Buddhist makes progress in the only world which exists, but interprets that progress through a distorted lens. There's no reason for the Buddha to have talked about otherworldly things, because there is no other world.
That, in any case, is my understanding of it all, after much study and practice, many years ago.
DT Strain wrote:
I have been told by a Buddhist monk that Buddhists do not believe that the material world is not real. Rather, they speak of illusions we have about it. For example, the 'self' is an illusion precisely because it is an aggregate of many parts interacting through cause and effect.
That's a very interesting way to put it, which I will have to mull over for a while. Thank you for giving me something to think about.
DT Strain wrote:
This is not a philosophy of escapism or about claims there is some invisible magical realm over the rainbow.
Absolutely! I hope I did not give the impression that I held such an opinion.
DT Strain wrote:
Buddhism is a philosophy specifically designed to better understand and live in our world - at least, the Buddhism I've been exposed to over the past several months.
The Buddhism I was exposed to is a philosophy centered around renunciation of the world and the realization that the self does not exist. Its central goal is not living harmoniously in our world (though that is part of the path), but escaping the cycle of birth and rebirth.
Purely out of curiosity, what sect does the monk you talked to belong to? I recently heard something similar from a friend of mine who is a lay Zen priest.
Conversant #1 (to DT Strain):
DT Strain wrote:
I have been told by a Buddhist monk that Buddhists do not believe that the material world is not real. Rather, they speak of illusions we have about it. For example, the 'self' is an illusion precisely because it is an aggregate of many parts interacting through cause and effect. [snip] Other illusions would be things like "chair". These are abstractions of patterns of aggregates. If we understood and intuitively saw the world as it was, we wouldn't get so caught up in all these abstract labels
That is precisely my understanding of Zen's point of view. Zen koans specifically aim at reality, not concepts.
"What is the Buddha? The cypress tree in the garden." While puzzling, the abstract "Buddha" (which in Mahayana has many rich meanings) is juxtaposed with something quite solid, not in the least conceptual.
DT Strain wrote:
This is not a philosophy of escapism or about claims there is some invisible magical realm over the rainbow. Buddhism is a philosophy specifically designed to better understand and live in our world - at least, the Buddhism I've been exposed to over the past several months.
I regret to add that some people do present Buddhism as a path to just such a magical realm. I've seen Zen portrayed as a means to gain near-magical powers, the cure to all one's ills (especially psychological), and the like.
Buddhism has been sold as snake oil, enlightenment used as a hook to bait gullible students into putting up with all sorts of financial and sexual abuse. See _Shoes Outside the Door: Desire, Devotion, and Excess at San Francisco Zen Center_ by Michael Downing for one example.
I found this a very helpful conversation (thus my inclusion of it on my philosophy site). Here are some important points that the conversation brought up, which I hope to explore more in the future:
Due to the lack of some features in certain schools, and the presence of the supernatural and savior-like figures (as conversant #1 points out), it is probably meaningless to engage in any sort of comparison between Buddhism and Stoicism unless one restricts the former to Theravada Buddhism, or the original teachings of the historic Buddha, as far as they can be determined. I suspect more similarities can be found by sticking to earlier Stoics than later, but I have yet to fully confirm that.
Jan mentions one difference between Stoicism and Buddhism is that Stoics were theists. Jan is far more knowledgeable of Stoicism than I, and he seems to share Long & Sedley's view. However, my interpretation and preference for earlier Stoics seems to indicate some wiggle room on this that would permit atheistic Stoicism. Meanwhile, as some of the other conversants mentioned, some branches of Buddhism have what seems to be theistic leanings. Thus the line remained somewhat elusive. For a more complete description of my take on theism and Stoicism, please see God and Stoicism [link here].
It is clear to me that I need to learn more about the subtleties of the Buddhist concept of loving kindness (metta) often translated, perhaps inappropriately, as 'compassion'. I also need to learn more about the Stoic concept of oikeiosis. These seem to be possibly parallel notions on compassion. To what degree compassion is considered an intellectual matter, a feeling, an impulse, an emotion, etc. will all reveal more about the compatibility of Stoicism and Buddhism.
Jan attempted to point out a difference considering the concept of 'self' in Buddhism, but ironically used some terms that, as Londonstoic pointed out, might indicate more overlap than contradiction. Jan said that, while Buddhists try to deconstruct the notion of self, Stoics turn the self into a "fortress". Meanwhile, Londonstoic points out that the Buddhist Dhammapada says we should "fortify the mind like a citadel". Thus, Buddhists do not suggest the mind is not real, but merely that it is not what we think it is. Both the Stoic and the Buddhist seek fortification of the "mind/self", although an obvious mismatch of terms and their usage seems obvious here.
Both Londonstoic and Sophia mentioned reincarnation as an obvious difference. However, I wonder about the ancient Stoic notion of the conflagration and the cyclical nature of the universe, in which we are supposedly to be reborn over and over. These are not identical concepts, to be sure. But one must wonder if they are 'close enough' and simultaneously not as central to the practice of either to be of importance. For my notes on a naturalistic interpretation of karma and rebirth, please see: A Naturalistic Approach to Buddhist Karma & Rebirth [link here].
Londonstoic mentioned this difference in the reason behind why things happen. However, we must remember that (1) karma is simply 'causation' and (2) for the Stoics, the will of God was not the same as many today might picture it. It was more a description of the rational order by which the universe operates (Logos). Therefore, I would tend to think, in essence, both boil down to descriptions of things working as they do, due to a logical order of 'how interactions in the universe operate'.
Stephen brought up an excellent point about moral responsibility. As he noted, it seems both philosophies tend to play down the self when it comes to promoting detachment, but then play it back up again when it comes to moral responsibility. It would be interesting, in general, to explore more about the relationship between notions of the self as they pertain to both detachment and moral responsibility. Or to come at it from another angle, to look directly at the relationship between detachment and moral responsibility to see how notions of the self fit in.
Conrad points out some very interesting avenues of exploration considering the 'renunciation of the self vs. renunciation of the world'. I see from his comments that I must learn more about the '
I have read a little about CBT before, but Londonstoic's mention of its influences has lead me to note the need to learn more about it.
Jan notes that both teachings focus on the ethical. Londonstoic notes that both focus on detachment and accepting impermanence. Both view philosophy as more than beliefs, but as a practice. As Amos says, both are "it's up to you" philosophies. I was also intrigued by Londonstoic's note that both attempt mindfulness - the Buddhists through meditation and the Stoics through recalling activities at the end of each day.
© Copyright DT Strain
<< Home