Stoicism and Early Buddhism on the Problem of Suffering
"To the rational being only the irrational is unendurable, but the rational is endurable." - Epictetus, Discourses
"A large part of mankind is angry not with the sins, but with the sinners." - Seneca, On Anger
"Concentrate every minute like a Romanlike a manon doing what's in front of you with precise and genuine seriousness, tenderly, willingly, with justice. And on freeing yourself from all other distractions." - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
"As rain breaks through an ill-thatched house, passion will break through an unreflecting mind." - Siddhartha Gautama, The Dhammapada
I discovered Stoicism when I was 14 through Marcus Aurelius and then again through Epictetus and Seneca when I hit high school but didn't really take what they said seriously until college. I even advocated, in rebellion to my Catholic schooling, a Christianized Stoicism, feigning ignorance that Justus Lipsius attempted this with Neostoicism, and that many Christian intellectuals prior to him attempted the same thing. Buddhism always interested me but I could never understand the technical jargon (and still can't, as Mahayana Buddhism is interesting but hard to understand coming from a western religious and philosophical background; Theravada Buddhism I find easier to understand). Early Buddhism, what I see as Philosophical Buddhism to distinguish this from the religious denominations of Buddhism, interests me because of its similarities to Stoicism. I want to summarize the similarities between both in few points:
1. Both Stoicism and Buddhism emphasize ethical principles and the cultivation of virtuous behavior. Stoicism encourages individuals to live in accordance with reason and virtue, making the cardinal virtues of wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance very important, while Buddhism promotes ethical conduct as a fundamental aspect of the Eightfold Path.
2. Both philosophies advocate for mindfulness and inner peace. Stoicism teaches individuals to accept what they cannot control and find tranquility within, irrespective of external circumstances. Buddhism, particularly in the practice of meditation, aims to achieve a similar state of mental clarity and equanimity. In Stoic practice the goal is apatheia, to be without suffering, and this is similar to the Buddhist idea of nirvana, liberation from suffering. The prerequisite, as I see it, for both systems of thought is to achieve a state of tranquility or mindfulness (what the Stoics call ataraxia and the Buddhists call sati).
3. Both Stoicism and Buddhism advise against excessive attachment to material possessions and the transient nature of external factors. Stoicism teaches the importance of distinguishing between what is within one's control and what is not, while Buddhism highlights the impermanence of worldly attachments as a central tenet in overcoming suffering. Compared to modern systems of thought, modern Stoics and philosophical Buddhists are (or should be) anti-materialist because extreme attachment to material things brings about suffering (what the Stoics call pathos unhealthy emotions, and the Buddhists call tanha, to thirst or crave for something).
Some of my favorite Stoics are Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Musonius Rufus, Epictetus, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius. Focusing on Early Buddhism I tend to read Buddhaghosa (although he's not really a representative of Early Buddhism he provides a great canonical way of understanding it) and the Pudgalavada, or "Personalist," school.
There is a great article in the book Religions and Trade: Religious Formation, Transformation and Cross-Cultural Exchange between East and West exploring contact between Greek and Indian society that can be found here:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1163/j.ctv2gjwxw0.9.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3A89d9f6697029acddfa16391db5d4b078&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1
"A large part of mankind is angry not with the sins, but with the sinners." - Seneca, On Anger
"Concentrate every minute like a Romanlike a manon doing what's in front of you with precise and genuine seriousness, tenderly, willingly, with justice. And on freeing yourself from all other distractions." - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
"As rain breaks through an ill-thatched house, passion will break through an unreflecting mind." - Siddhartha Gautama, The Dhammapada
I discovered Stoicism when I was 14 through Marcus Aurelius and then again through Epictetus and Seneca when I hit high school but didn't really take what they said seriously until college. I even advocated, in rebellion to my Catholic schooling, a Christianized Stoicism, feigning ignorance that Justus Lipsius attempted this with Neostoicism, and that many Christian intellectuals prior to him attempted the same thing. Buddhism always interested me but I could never understand the technical jargon (and still can't, as Mahayana Buddhism is interesting but hard to understand coming from a western religious and philosophical background; Theravada Buddhism I find easier to understand). Early Buddhism, what I see as Philosophical Buddhism to distinguish this from the religious denominations of Buddhism, interests me because of its similarities to Stoicism. I want to summarize the similarities between both in few points:
1. Both Stoicism and Buddhism emphasize ethical principles and the cultivation of virtuous behavior. Stoicism encourages individuals to live in accordance with reason and virtue, making the cardinal virtues of wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance very important, while Buddhism promotes ethical conduct as a fundamental aspect of the Eightfold Path.
2. Both philosophies advocate for mindfulness and inner peace. Stoicism teaches individuals to accept what they cannot control and find tranquility within, irrespective of external circumstances. Buddhism, particularly in the practice of meditation, aims to achieve a similar state of mental clarity and equanimity. In Stoic practice the goal is apatheia, to be without suffering, and this is similar to the Buddhist idea of nirvana, liberation from suffering. The prerequisite, as I see it, for both systems of thought is to achieve a state of tranquility or mindfulness (what the Stoics call ataraxia and the Buddhists call sati).
3. Both Stoicism and Buddhism advise against excessive attachment to material possessions and the transient nature of external factors. Stoicism teaches the importance of distinguishing between what is within one's control and what is not, while Buddhism highlights the impermanence of worldly attachments as a central tenet in overcoming suffering. Compared to modern systems of thought, modern Stoics and philosophical Buddhists are (or should be) anti-materialist because extreme attachment to material things brings about suffering (what the Stoics call pathos unhealthy emotions, and the Buddhists call tanha, to thirst or crave for something).
Some of my favorite Stoics are Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Musonius Rufus, Epictetus, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius. Focusing on Early Buddhism I tend to read Buddhaghosa (although he's not really a representative of Early Buddhism he provides a great canonical way of understanding it) and the Pudgalavada, or "Personalist," school.
There is a great article in the book Religions and Trade: Religious Formation, Transformation and Cross-Cultural Exchange between East and West exploring contact between Greek and Indian society that can be found here:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1163/j.ctv2gjwxw0.9.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3A89d9f6697029acddfa16391db5d4b078&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1
Comments (16)
A question: whilst there are similarities, I think one cardinal difference is the absence in the Greek culture of an equivalent for the belief in sa?s?ra and re-birth characteristic of Buddhist and Hindu cultures (although haven't looked at your article yet). I understand these themes were found in the Orphic religions which were the kind of generic Indo-European beliefs associated with very early Greek culture, but I don't know if that carries over to the Stoics.
I believe the article does mention Pyrrhonism as a part of cross cultural exchange. And I dont know if the Stoics had any view on rebirth; The Pythagoreans taught this but I dont see it at all in Stoicism. I also find The Questions of King Milinda to be a prime example of what Greco-Buddhism was.
It seems to me that the Stoics had an overall positive view of life.
All of them are a tacit optimism if they endorse lifes continuation in the face of conditions of suffering, so pessimism is clearly the winner :razz:
Right. But the justification for non-monks to procreate nonetheless, because they hadnt reached that level yet theyll just reach it on a future cycle..isnt that how the argument goes? Strictly speaking, all adherents would immediately stop aspiration for starting a family.
Well, certainly having children cant help the situation and would represent a cognitive dissonance in belief and practice because of convenience, preference or otherwise.
I've always though Nietzsche's amor fati was merely derived from Stoicism. That may be why he disliked the Stoics.
It also has to do with the way Buddhist religious tenets are formulated not as commandments (the way commandments exist in, for example, Christianity), but in a more tentative manner, as in "You'll follow the religious precepts once you see that they are worthwhile/true, until then, just do your best and don't worry much".
Our Western notions about religion are largely tailored after Christianity, so when we look at other religions, we automatically see them through our Christianity-shaped lens. Yet this isn't necessarily how things work in other religions.
At any given time, any particular adherent is at some particular point on their religious journey. It's not the case that every adherent has already "arrived" at the goal. Instead, there is a large a variety of religious expressions in terms of how strictly adherents keep to the religious tenets of their professed religion (if they in fact profess it at all themselves, or if their religious membership is assigned externally, by third persons).
Am I correct in describing this as an Hegelian thesis-antithesis synthesis happening within a single individual, and also happening partly in the emotional domain?
:100:
Of course if people only know Christianity theyll naturally view other religions through that lens because thats the only model they know. I remember being in an introductory meeting at a zen center with a group of newbies years ago. One of the newcomers had a Christian background and asked about the soul in Buddhism; asking what they called it or something. He didnt seem to get it at all when someone tried to explain.
Regarding moral codes specifically, all religions gotm and they all basically work the same way in terms of adherence. Indeed, they generally work the same way in non-religious contexts as well, with those high in the social hierarchy enjoying immunity and those of low status suffering persecution for even minor transgressions.