Stoicism & Buddhism

[Straw Dog]

Greetings,

Stoicism and Buddhism have a great deal in common, even though the former was established in Ancient Greece and the latter arose in India. They both teach us to face suffering directly rather than avoid it. Other common teachings include observing with non-attachment (neither craving or aversion), equanimity, cognitive distancing, objective representation, contemplating the transience of all things, and contemplating death. There are a few differences as well. Stoicism emphasizes prospective and retrospective meditations whereas Buddhism focuses on direct awareness of the moment.

Perhaps a greater difference exists in what they teach regarding observation. In Stoicism, observation is followed by adaptation of thinking so as to become undisturbed by undesirable circumstances. In Buddhism, one is to maintain impartial observation of thoughts and feelings even when they're disturbing. I can see pros and cons for both. The downside of the Stoic method is that it may create a sharp divide between the internal and the external leaving the individual seemingly isolated. The downside of the Buddhist method is that it can become extremely difficult to maintain impartiality in the presence of pain.

What other similarities do they share? What other differences?

Is it better to adapt thinking to become more undisturbable or to maintain impartial observation no matter what? What are other pros and cons of each approach?

 

[crossfire]

Greetings,

Stoicism and Buddhism have a great deal in common, even though the former was established in Ancient Greece and the latter arose in India. They both teach us to face suffering directly rather than avoid it. Other common teachings include observing with non-attachment (neither craving or aversion), equanimity, cognitive distancing, objective representation, contemplating the transience of all things, and contemplating death. There are a few differences as well. Stoicism emphasizes prospective and retrospective meditations whereas Buddhism focuses on direct awareness of the moment.

Perhaps a greater difference exists in what they teach regarding observation. In Stoicism, observation is followed by adaptation of thinking so as to become undisturbed by undesirable circumstances. In Buddhism, one is to maintain impartial observation of thoughts and feelings even when they're disturbing. I can see pros and cons for both. The downside of the Stoic method is that it may create a sharp divide between the internal and the external leaving the individual seemingly isolated. The downside of the Buddhist method is that it can become extremely difficult to maintain impartiality in the presence of pain.

What other similarities do they share? What other differences?

Is it better to adapt thinking to become more undisturbable or to maintain impartial observation no matter what? What are other pros and cons of each approach?

If you favor changing your thinking to become more undisturbable, you are vulnerable to manipulation and more prone to desensitization. Desensitization doesn't lead to clarity, imo.

 

[Straw Dog]

If you favor changing your thinking to become more undisturbable, you are vulnerable to manipulation and more prone to desensitization. Desensitization doesn't lead to clarity, imo.

So too much dispassion may compromise compassion? Makes sense. I believe compassion means "to suffer with". How can we suffer with someone, and help alleviate it, if we're always posting a "do not disturb" sign? This goes along with the problem of isolation I mentioned in the OP.

In what ways do you think it lends itself to manipulation?

 

[Straw Dog]

The Stoic may also become too attached to certain mind-states, such as tranquility.

 

[crossfire]

So too much dispassion may compromise compassion? Makes sense. I believe compassion means "to suffer with". How can we suffer with someone, and help alleviate it, if we're always posting a "do not disturb" sign? This goes along with the problem of isolation I mentioned in the OP.

In what ways do you think it lends itself to manipulation?

Well if you want to exploit something, then it would behoove you to desensitize those who might do something about it, so you can get away with it.

 

[crossfire]

So too much dispassion may compromise compassion? Makes sense. I believe compassion means "to suffer with". How can we suffer with someone, and help alleviate it, if we're always posting a "do not disturb" sign? This goes along with the problem of isolation I mentioned in the OP.

In what ways do you think it lends itself to manipulation?

Here's an analogy for you regarding manipulation:

Which is easier to move: a solid, rigid block, or an amorphous mass of the same weight as the rigid block? You can use leverage on the solid block, but it is much more difficult to do this to an amorphous mass.

 

[Straw Dog]

Here's an analogy for you regarding manipulation:

Which is easier to move: a solid, rigid block, or an amorphous mass of the same weight as the rigid block? You can use leverage on the solid block, but it is much more difficult to do this to an amorphous mass.

Indeed. It is better to flow like water than roll like a rock.

 

[Straw Dog]

Where's Penumbra? I bet she might have a good counter-argument.

 

[crossfire]

Indeed. It is better to flow like water than roll like a rock.

Now I'm off to youtube Robin Trower's Too Rolling Stoned!

 

[Orontes]

Greetings,

What other similarities do they share? What other differences?

Hello,

I don’t think Stoic and general Buddhist Thought have a lot in common. The underlying metaphysic(s) is opposed. Stoicism is fully within the tradition developed from the Pre-Socratic Parmenides. Stoicism is externalist: being exists and cannot not exist. There is no corollary to Anatman. Stoicism is determinist. Buddhism is not. Stoicism would reject the tetralemma utterly and in fact took Aristotelian logical induction and developed propositional logic. Stoic apatheia is quite distinct from Buddhist sunyata or nirvana. Similarities that might be noted, do not speak to the more basic and fundamental differences.

 

[Straw Dog]

Hello,

I don’t think Stoic and general Buddhist Thought have a lot in common. The underlying metaphysic(s) is opposed. Stoicism is fully within the tradition developed from the Pre-Socratic Parmenides. Stoicism is externalist: being exists and cannot not exist. There is no corollary to Anatman. Stoicism is determinist. Buddhism is not. Stoicism would reject the tetralemma utterly and in fact took Aristotelian logical induction and developed propositional logic. Stoic apatheia is quite distinct from Buddhist sunyata or nirvana. Similarities that might be noted, do not speak to the more basic and fundamental differences.

Thanks for expanding on their differences. I was focusing too much on the similarities between some of their practices and didn't thoroughly explore the more apparent differences in their metaphysics. I tend to take a bottom-up view with direct experience and practical method taking precedence over abstract theory and metaphysical speculation. Traditions tend to diverge more on the abstract level.

 

[Metempsychosis]

Hello,

I don’t think Stoic and general Buddhist Thought have a lot in common. The underlying metaphysic(s) is opposed. Stoicism is fully within the tradition developed from the Pre-Socratic Parmenides. Stoicism is externalist: being exists and cannot not exist. There is no corollary to Anatman. Stoicism is determinist. Buddhism is not. Stoicism would reject the tetralemma utterly and in fact took Aristotelian logical induction and developed propositional logic. Stoic apatheia is quite distinct from Buddhist sunyata or nirvana. Similarities that might be noted, do not speak to the more basic and fundamental differences.

Stoicism in my opinion is equivalent to social Buddhism.But,stoicism has much more common ideas with Hinduism because Buddhism is more about negation than about affirmation.Stoicism is not deterministic,it is compatibilitic-just like Buddhism.There is scope for both free will and fate.Both(Stoic and Hinduism) of which is based on tradition of divination which in Indian tradition is known as Jyotish. Again,the emphasis is on ethics rather than mysticism/metaphysics(as in Buddhism) like all other Greek traditions.Major difference between Stoicism and Indian Traditions is that Stoicism believes in some kind of materialistic substrate behind all phenomenon which is denied by Buddhism& Hinduism.But,it has very little influence on stoic ethics.Similarities-Both of them focus on Dispassion,mindfulness etc - Stoic equivalent of buddhist mindfulness is 'prosoche'.Stoicism and Platonic stance that 'Eros' is originally logos is equivalent to Shaivite(Tantric) equivalent to 'Shakthi'.I would compare 'Ataraxia' with 'nirvana'.

 

[DreadFish]

I dont know a whole lot about stoic metaphysics but, as far as your questions goes and according to my understanding of the practice, the stoic practice of modifying one's mental reactions to phenomena is not at all contrary to the buddhist practice of maintaining equanimous awareness of what arises in the moment.


As an example, I had to look up "apatheia" because I did not know what it meant, so I looked at the wiki article which contained this quote:

Pain is slight if opinion has added nothing to it; ... in thinking it slight, you will make it slight. Everything depends on opinion; ambition, luxury, greed, hark back to opinion. It is according to opinion that we suffer. ... So let us also win the way to victory in all our struggles, – for the reward is ... virtue, steadfastness of soul, and a peace that is won for all time.
—Seneca, Wikisource-logo.svg Epistles, lxxviii. 13–16

To me, modifying mental reactions so as to be indifferent to experiences is not a cold disassociation. One can be fully aware of and open to experience and still have conditioned their mind to not react in ways that cause suffering. Im pretty sure that there are practices in Buddhism that are performed for the same purpose. As evidenced by the quote, it's the interfering with experiences by way of opinion that makes them one way or the other; so it's a practice of equanimity.

Again, I don't know much about stoicism but, modifying one's reactions to experiences to free one's self from suffering hardly implies "fortifying" against anything which, to me, implies putting up barriers, which is a defensive reaction to an experience based on the opinion that the experience is harmful.

EDIT: So, im my believing that the practices are not contrary, I would say that they may be different and can be complimentary, but I do not see them as contrary. MEtaphysically speaking, the ontology of stoicism and buddhism do not really match up for the most part. Still, the whole point of anatta is saying that these conditioned phenomena are "not self" and "do not belong to self", the point of which is to promote non-attachment to all the aggregates which, as far as I can tell, is the same thing as the stoics acknowledging that one does not have control over physically conditioned things thus being indifferent to what they do

 

[Metempsychosis]

Are there any women stoics at all?Seems like all the famous ones were male.

 

[crossfire]

Are there any women stoics at all?Seems like all the famous ones were male.

Female Greek philosophers? Remember, we are talking about the Greeks here!

 

[Orontes]

Thanks for expanding on their differences. I was focusing too much on the similarities between some of their practices and didn't thoroughly explore the more apparent differences in their metaphysics. I tend to take a bottom-up view with direct experience and practical method taking precedence over abstract theory and metaphysical speculation. Traditions tend to diverge more on the abstract level.

I understand.

 

[Orontes]

Stoicism in my opinion is equivalent to social Buddhism.But,stoicism has much more common ideas with Hinduism because Buddhism is more about negation than about affirmation.Stoicism is not deterministic,it is compatibilitic-just like Buddhism.There is scope for both free will and fate.Both(Stoic and Hinduism) of which is based on tradition of divination which in Indian tradition is known as Jyotish. Again,the emphasis is on ethics rather than mysticism/metaphysics(as in Buddhism) like all other Greek traditions.Major difference between Stoicism and Indian Traditions is that Stoicism believes in some kind of materialistic substrate behind all phenomenon which is denied by Buddhism& Hinduism.But,it has very little influence on stoic ethics.Similarities-Both of them focus on Dispassion,mindfulness etc - Stoic equivalent of buddhist mindfulness is 'prosoche'.Stoicism and Platonic stance that 'Eros' is originally logos is equivalent to Shaivite(Tantric) equivalent to 'Shakthi'.I would compare 'Ataraxia' with 'nirvana'.

Stoicism is a determinism. To deny such is to not understand a base component of the positioning. A common rhetorical device Stoics used in discussing free will and fate was comparing the subject to a dog tied to a cart. Regardless of the dog's movements, desires or wants, he is forced to go along with the direction of the cart.

Ataraxia is Epicurean, not fundamentally Stoic. One might find it noted in Stoic writings, but this is only because Epicureanism was Stoicism's major philosophical rival. Stoicism recognizes it as a value, but not a goal. Stoicism is not a eudaimonianism. Rather, it's focus is on arete: virtue and natural law.

As to comparing Stoic Thought with Hinduism. It depends on which Hindu School one is considering. Hinduism is not a monolith. Even so, anything one may assign as a Stoic asceticism is distinct from Hindu asceticism both in practice and goal, nor is there anything relating to a Stoic bhakti-ism.

In general I think it's problematic to compare philosophical/religious models that developed from distinct civilizations. The comparisons that are made are typically peripheral and done at the expense of ignoring what makes each unique.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Are there any women stoics at all?Seems like all the famous ones were male.

Probably. But maybe their writings didn't survive. We know that there were female Hellenic philosophers, such as Hypatia.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So too much dispassion may compromise compassion? Makes sense. I believe compassion means "to suffer with". How can we suffer with someone, and help alleviate it, if we're always posting a "do not disturb" sign? This goes along with the problem of isolation I mentioned in the OP.

In what ways do you think it lends itself to manipulation?

That doesn't rule out acting against wrongdoing on the basis of ethics or reason, rather than blind emotion.

 

[Metempsychosis]

Stoicism is a determinism. To deny such is to not understand a base component of the positioning. A common rhetorical device Stoics used in discussing free will and fate was comparing the subject to a dog tied to a cart. Regardless of the dog's movements, desires or wants, he is forced to go along with the direction of the cart.

This what I mean Compatibilism or soft determism,I was negating hard determinism.But your assertion that Buddhism is not deterministic is false.All Dharmic religions have some kind of determinism in them atleast till you reach nirvana.They are mostly compatibilitistic:
Buddhist theory on Dependent Origination

On a general level, it refers to one of the central concepts in the Buddhist tradition—that all things arise in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions.
...one of the many things the Buddha discovered in the course of his awakening was that causality is not linear. The experience of the present is shaped both by actions in the present and by actions in the past. Actions in the present shape both the present and the future. The results of past and present actions continually interact. Thus there is always room for new input into the system, which gives scope for free will.
Pratītyasamutpāda

Crysippus on Fate:

The Stoic view of fate is entirely based on a view of the universe as a whole. Individual things and persons only come into consideration as dependent parts of this whole.[59] Everything is, in every respect, determined by this relation, and is consequently subject to the general order of the world.[55]
If his opponents objected that, if everything is determined by destiny, there is no individual responsibility, since what has been once foreordained must happen, come what may, Chrysippus replied that there is a distinction to be made between simple and complex predestination.[60] Becoming ill may be fated whatever happens but, if a person's recovery is linked to consulting a doctor, then consulting the doctor is fated to occur together with that person's recovery, and this becomes a complex fact.[61] All human actions – in fact, our destiny – are decided by our relation to things,[62] or as Chrysippus put it, events are "co-fated" to occur:[61]
The non-destruction of one's coat, he says, is not fated simply, but co-fated with its being taken care of, and someone's being saved from his enemies is co-fated with his fleeing those enemies; and having children is co-fated with being willing to lie with a woman. ... For many things cannot occur without our being willing and indeed contributing a most strenuous eagerness and zeal for these things, since, he says, it was fated for these things to occur in conjunction with this personal effort. ... But it will be in our power, he says, with what is in our power being included in fate
Chrysippus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ataraxia is Epicurean, not fundamentally Stoic. One might find it noted in Stoic writings, but this is only because Epicureanism was Stoicism's major philosophical rival. Stoicism recognizes it as a value, but not a goal. Stoicism is not a eudaimonianism. Rather, it's focus is on arete: virtue and natural law.


As to comparing Stoic Thought with Hinduism. It depends on which Hindu School one is considering. Hinduism is not a monolith. Even so, anything one may assign as a Stoic asceticism is distinct from Hindu asceticism both in practice and goal, nor is there anything relating to a Stoic bhakti-ism.

True,this is a major difference.

In general I think it's problematic to compare philosophical/religious models that developed from distinct civilizations. The comparisons that are made are typically peripheral and done at the expense of ignoring what makes each unique.

I did the comparison because that is what the OP wanted.Not that they are same or have similar methods.