-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Stoicism & Buddhism
- Thread starter Straw Dog
- Start date
Not only did none of Hypatia's philosophical writings survive, but Hypatia herself didn't survive as a philosopher! (She was murdered by a mob.)
Yeah, been considering this further, and realized that equanimity, or dispassion, are not equivalent to apathy. Caring is not the same as worrying, although many of us often confuse the two. We can acknowledge something as being desirable or undesirable without adding excessive craving or aversion, if that makes any sense.
True. I don't believe Aristotle put much stock in compassion per se. We could still be motivated by a cultivated sense of social duty or particular reasoning.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Hello again,
Compatibilism is generally incoherent. That aside, Stoicism is not a soft determinism: there is no space for the subject to alter what will be. There is no freedom of action. There is no could-have-been-otherwise. Your quote of Crysippus only reinforces this.
Per the notion of Buddhist determinism: dependent origination is a causality, but causality alone is not determinism. Buddhism recognizes space for the subject to choose, make decisions. That a choice has impact does not mean there is not freedom of action. The coming together of skandhas does not mean that their origination negates options for the subject.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Why do you believe this?
Indeed, how you process the skandas can very much affect the outcome. Impermanence (anicca) is very much a key. In dependent co-arising, with the arising of this comes the arising of that, but also with the cessation of this comes the cessation of that. Knowing when to grasp and when to release is called skillfulness, or wei wu wei by the Taoists.
DreadFish
Cosmic Vagabond
It is my impression that there is a free will in the stioc view in that an individual chooses how they react to what is happening, just as you mention there is in buddhism.
Metempsychosis
Reincarnation of 'Anti-religion'
How?
Can you come with sources?
I would suggest you to read about Epictectus definition on Prohairesis.
Epictetus (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Of course not.Please read it again.
Your concept of virtue does not have any meaning,if there is no option for the subject to choose.
That depends on Skandas themselves.
Please note that I would not take up this discussion any further if you do not come up with sources.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Hello,
I understand what you are saying. The Stoics didnt have the same linguistic tools that we do. For example, there was no noun expression for will (as in free will). Rather, Stoics used terms like hueuthunos which basically means accountable for. It was applied to issues of praise, blame, punishment and reward.
The Stoics recognized a subject has control of their assent or rejection of impressions they receive. This is therefore entirely within the mind. It does not allow one to change what will be. For example, one might be arrested for stealing a ham and find themselves being drug to prison. They might feel angry for being caught, or afraid from the false arrest and what they think may come, but neither emotional state will change their being drug away to prison. The only thing the subject can control is their mental response to the impression. Understanding this is what separates the wise from the slave . Buddhism on the contrary recognizes personal freedom of action.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
This is a standard counter:
1-No one has power over the facts of the past and the laws of nature.
2-No one has power over the fact that the facts of the past and the laws of nature entail every fact of the future (i.e., determinism is true).
3-Therefore, no one has power over the facts of the future.
In short, determinism is incompatible with free agency.
I don’t know how to address this. Soft determinism is a product of Hume (18th Century). Soft determinism didn’t exist for the Stoics. Are you asking me to prove a negative?
Prohairesis is a mental faculty. It does not allow one to change what is, or will be.
"By ‘fate’, I mean what the Greeks call heimarmenê – an ordering and sequence of causes, since it is the connexion of cause to cause which out of itself produces anything. … Consequently nothing has happened which was not going to be, and likewise nothing is going to be of which nature does not contain causes working to bring that very thing about. This makes it intelligible that fate should be, not the ‘fate’ of superstition, but that of physics, an everlasting cause of things – why past things happened, why present things are now happening, and why future things will be.” -Cicero, On divination 1.125–6
The Crysippus reference does not mean the subject has the power to change what will be, or that there are alternatives to fate. What the reference labels as co-fate is simply the larger interconnecting network of causal determination played out across all that is.
Virtue lay with the subject's ability to give assent and be free from assuming control where it does not exist. This is basically, the aligning of the self with the will of God who is in and through all things. Stoics held that the governing part of the soul, the hegemonikon is part of the logos, which is divine.
Skandhas compose the self, but do not determine how the self will act.
Your replies are your own affair.
Last edited:
If the poll options of "Fortify the mind against disturbances" and "Maintain impartial observation of thoughts and feelings" are meant to describe Stoicism and Buddhism respectively, then those are not definitions I'd personally use or agree with to describe them, especially the first one for Stoicism.
If anything, they remind me more of the Platform Sutra's verses to describe Chan (Zen) Buddhism. In the story, the patriarch is looking to find the next (sixth) patriarch to carry on Chan Buddhism. The head monk, Shenxiu, writes a verse on the wall as his response:
Huineng saw that verse, and responded with his own:
Huineng became the sixth patriarch.
Some interpretations are that the first verse represents a gradual approach, and the second one represents an instantaneous approach, to enlightenment. Another interpretation is that both are useful for different stages, with the second one being the more advanced understanding. Clearly the second one, Huineng's, is emphasized as the one to understand.
When someone is new at trying to develop a characteristic, they might do things like:
a) Understand why they want to develop that characteristic
b) Be mindful of when they are in a situation where that characteristic is relevant
c) Express that characteristic whenever possible, with practice
For example, if someone wants to learn to maintain impartial observation of thoughts and feelings, then the practitioner might take steps such as practicing mindfulness, doing some solitary meditation, attending meditation or discussion groups, regularly reading Buddhist scriptures, and so forth. And this might seem to them a lot like they're constantly wiping their mirror, or constantly fortifying their mind, which they are. But the goal isn't to have to do that forever; it's to change one's nature to do it naturally, by default, at all times. In other words in Buddhism, once you're there, you've basically got it, and it's the new realization of a status quo that was always there rather than something that has to be continually maintained, because everything else has been stripped away. So the verses, as well as the poll options, can either describe different ways of approaching a problem, or can describe different levels of attainment.
Comparing Buddhism and Stoicism is a bit more complicated than comparing two schools of thought. For Buddhism, there's Theravada, Mahayana, Tibetan, Chan, Pure Land, etc. For Stoicism, there are the early Greek Stoics that focused on logic, metaphysics, and ethics, of which there is little in the way of surviving written works, and then there are later Roman Stoics that focused more on the ethics and mindset than on the logic and metaphysics, of which there is quite a bit of written work that survived.
For example, take Epictetus, a Roman Stoic. He wrote things like:
"For freedom is secured not by the fulfilling of men's desires, but by the removal of desire."
"See that nothing that is not your own is attached to you or clings to you, that nothing shall give you pain if it is torn away from you."
"Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form concerning things. Death, for instance, is not terrible, else it would have appeared so to Socrates. But the terror consists in our notion of death that it is terrible."
and Marcus Aurelius echoed similar views in his Meditations:
"Get rid of the judgment, get rid of the 'I am hurt,' you are rid of the hurt itself."
So Stoicism had quite a bit to do with impartial observation. Those verses, when fully taken into one's character, do not represent the idea of having to constantly fortify one's mind. That's a commonality between Buddhism and Stoicism- a main thing in both of them is that suffering is largely caused by views and judgments that one takes about events, rather than the event itself.
If anything, they remind me more of the Platform Sutra's verses to describe Chan (Zen) Buddhism. In the story, the patriarch is looking to find the next (sixth) patriarch to carry on Chan Buddhism. The head monk, Shenxiu, writes a verse on the wall as his response:
Shenxiu said:
Huineng saw that verse, and responded with his own:
Source.Huineng said:
Huineng became the sixth patriarch.
Some interpretations are that the first verse represents a gradual approach, and the second one represents an instantaneous approach, to enlightenment. Another interpretation is that both are useful for different stages, with the second one being the more advanced understanding. Clearly the second one, Huineng's, is emphasized as the one to understand.
When someone is new at trying to develop a characteristic, they might do things like:
a) Understand why they want to develop that characteristic
b) Be mindful of when they are in a situation where that characteristic is relevant
c) Express that characteristic whenever possible, with practice
For example, if someone wants to learn to maintain impartial observation of thoughts and feelings, then the practitioner might take steps such as practicing mindfulness, doing some solitary meditation, attending meditation or discussion groups, regularly reading Buddhist scriptures, and so forth. And this might seem to them a lot like they're constantly wiping their mirror, or constantly fortifying their mind, which they are. But the goal isn't to have to do that forever; it's to change one's nature to do it naturally, by default, at all times. In other words in Buddhism, once you're there, you've basically got it, and it's the new realization of a status quo that was always there rather than something that has to be continually maintained, because everything else has been stripped away. So the verses, as well as the poll options, can either describe different ways of approaching a problem, or can describe different levels of attainment.
Comparing Buddhism and Stoicism is a bit more complicated than comparing two schools of thought. For Buddhism, there's Theravada, Mahayana, Tibetan, Chan, Pure Land, etc. For Stoicism, there are the early Greek Stoics that focused on logic, metaphysics, and ethics, of which there is little in the way of surviving written works, and then there are later Roman Stoics that focused more on the ethics and mindset than on the logic and metaphysics, of which there is quite a bit of written work that survived.
For example, take Epictetus, a Roman Stoic. He wrote things like:
"For freedom is secured not by the fulfilling of men's desires, but by the removal of desire."
"See that nothing that is not your own is attached to you or clings to you, that nothing shall give you pain if it is torn away from you."
"Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form concerning things. Death, for instance, is not terrible, else it would have appeared so to Socrates. But the terror consists in our notion of death that it is terrible."
and Marcus Aurelius echoed similar views in his Meditations:
"Get rid of the judgment, get rid of the 'I am hurt,' you are rid of the hurt itself."
So Stoicism had quite a bit to do with impartial observation. Those verses, when fully taken into one's character, do not represent the idea of having to constantly fortify one's mind. That's a commonality between Buddhism and Stoicism- a main thing in both of them is that suffering is largely caused by views and judgments that one takes about events, rather than the event itself.
The way I see it, while some paths can simply be better or more correct than others, it's more often the case that different paths are best for different situations and different people.
Even in one set of religions, like Hinduism, there are different paths like Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga, and Jnana Yoga (paths of devotion, action, and knowledge, respectively), among others. One is not necessarily better than the other in that worldview, but one will be better for a certain person than another.
Stoicism emphasizes logic. Stoics often proved a point by stating a series of arguments to lead to a conclusion. For example, if I want to tell you not to worry, I might say that worrying will not be necessary if the event doesn't turn out badly, and if it does turn out badly, then worrying didn't do any good anyway. Or, to borrow from Epicurus (because Greek philosophy in general relied on logic, not just Stoicism), he argued that it's not logical to fear death because when you exist, death doesn't, and when death exists, you don't. If one follows and agrees with those points, then it can hold more weight than simply suggesting that one should not judge death as being a negative thing, without explanation. That's the kind of approach Stoicism took- you observe something as objectively as possible, without your subjective judgments, and see that it is not bad. The logical conclusions were supposed to lead to realizing that your opinions of things cause suffering rather than things themselves, that desires cause suffering, that virtue is what really matters, and so forth. Aurelius described it like this:
In addition to logic, Stoics practiced things. They meditated on death, they took icy cold baths, they stated specific goals upon awakening in the morning, and so forth. They prepared themselves for things that could come, and applied their logic to practical tests to experience things directly. Again, from Aurelius:
Buddhism does not necessarily emphasize logic. In some approaches, things like Koans are even used to take the emphasis away from logic. Buddhism tends to focus more on meditation of the present moment, to understand the difference between pure consciousness and individual thoughts that come and go furiously within that consciousness. Some Buddhists even do types of meditations like the Stoics- to focus on certain things. For example, they may meditate on rotting meat in order to reduce their bodily sensual desires.
So they're different paths, leading to similar conclusions, but emphasizing different things, that may work well for different personalities.
Plus, for both Buddhism and Stoicism, the metaphysics are relevant.
In Stoicism, an aspect of the metaphysics was that the Absolute, the pantheistic or panentheistic god, is conscious and logical. So, a Stoic might say that whatever happens, happens because it is good to happen, and therefore something to be accepted. Perhaps an event happens as an opportunity for you to express a certain virtue, or for some other reason. Either way, it wouldn't happen if it was not for the best. But on the other hand, Stoics placed little emphasis on the afterlife, and as far as religions go, were pretty agnostic about it. The focus was on this life. Aurelius even combined these ideas by suggesting that if it benefits man, there will be an afterlife, and if not, then there won't, because all is for the good. And unlike Buddhism where the most devout followers tend to advocate letting go of the world (living in monasteries, or discussing stories of years of solitary meditation), the Stoics were still heavily involved in the world as politicians, teachers, soldiers, husbands, and emperors, because the world was never viewed as something to permanently let go of.
In Buddhism, it tends not to make the claim that all that happens is for the good, or that there is some central logic to the way things are. But, there tends to be more emphasis on the afterlife, on Samsara. A bulk of Buddhist incentive comes from the idea that a person will be continually reborn in the cycle of birth and death until s/he can escape from it by dropping desire. Even without an afterlife, some Buddhist practices can be useful to deal with stressful events (mindfulness, developing impartial awareness by separating consciousness from thoughts, and so forth). But if your life is mostly happy with pleasures to enjoy, it doesn't really make much sense to delve hardcore into Buddhism to eliminate desire, if you don't believe in rebirth.
So, part of determining which philosophy/religion is a better path for a person, would involve that person assessing the metaphysics of each worldview as well as seeing it if matches their personality. One or the other might make more sense (or neither) given certain views about how the universe works, and given facts about their current life (pleasurable or painful, easy or difficult, happy or sad).
Both Stoicism and Buddhism tend to be fairly hardcore as far as philosophies go, perhaps ideal for particularly difficult situations. For example, James Stockdale credited Stoicism (particularly Epictetus) with getting him through seven years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, through years of solitary confinement and torture. And Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc was so experienced with meditation that he could burn himself alive without showing any pain. If one finds themselves in a horrible situation, or if one has desires that will never be fulfilled, Stoicism and Buddhism can be approaches to deal with that harsh reality.
In more casual circumstances, in my opinion, neither Buddhism or Stoicism are ideal, although certain aspects of them can be useful for the more distressing periods in life.
Even in one set of religions, like Hinduism, there are different paths like Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga, and Jnana Yoga (paths of devotion, action, and knowledge, respectively), among others. One is not necessarily better than the other in that worldview, but one will be better for a certain person than another.
Stoicism emphasizes logic. Stoics often proved a point by stating a series of arguments to lead to a conclusion. For example, if I want to tell you not to worry, I might say that worrying will not be necessary if the event doesn't turn out badly, and if it does turn out badly, then worrying didn't do any good anyway. Or, to borrow from Epicurus (because Greek philosophy in general relied on logic, not just Stoicism), he argued that it's not logical to fear death because when you exist, death doesn't, and when death exists, you don't. If one follows and agrees with those points, then it can hold more weight than simply suggesting that one should not judge death as being a negative thing, without explanation. That's the kind of approach Stoicism took- you observe something as objectively as possible, without your subjective judgments, and see that it is not bad. The logical conclusions were supposed to lead to realizing that your opinions of things cause suffering rather than things themselves, that desires cause suffering, that virtue is what really matters, and so forth. Aurelius described it like this:
Marcus Aurelius said:
In addition to logic, Stoics practiced things. They meditated on death, they took icy cold baths, they stated specific goals upon awakening in the morning, and so forth. They prepared themselves for things that could come, and applied their logic to practical tests to experience things directly. Again, from Aurelius:
Marcus Aurelius said:
Buddhism does not necessarily emphasize logic. In some approaches, things like Koans are even used to take the emphasis away from logic. Buddhism tends to focus more on meditation of the present moment, to understand the difference between pure consciousness and individual thoughts that come and go furiously within that consciousness. Some Buddhists even do types of meditations like the Stoics- to focus on certain things. For example, they may meditate on rotting meat in order to reduce their bodily sensual desires.
So they're different paths, leading to similar conclusions, but emphasizing different things, that may work well for different personalities.
Plus, for both Buddhism and Stoicism, the metaphysics are relevant.
In Stoicism, an aspect of the metaphysics was that the Absolute, the pantheistic or panentheistic god, is conscious and logical. So, a Stoic might say that whatever happens, happens because it is good to happen, and therefore something to be accepted. Perhaps an event happens as an opportunity for you to express a certain virtue, or for some other reason. Either way, it wouldn't happen if it was not for the best. But on the other hand, Stoics placed little emphasis on the afterlife, and as far as religions go, were pretty agnostic about it. The focus was on this life. Aurelius even combined these ideas by suggesting that if it benefits man, there will be an afterlife, and if not, then there won't, because all is for the good. And unlike Buddhism where the most devout followers tend to advocate letting go of the world (living in monasteries, or discussing stories of years of solitary meditation), the Stoics were still heavily involved in the world as politicians, teachers, soldiers, husbands, and emperors, because the world was never viewed as something to permanently let go of.
In Buddhism, it tends not to make the claim that all that happens is for the good, or that there is some central logic to the way things are. But, there tends to be more emphasis on the afterlife, on Samsara. A bulk of Buddhist incentive comes from the idea that a person will be continually reborn in the cycle of birth and death until s/he can escape from it by dropping desire. Even without an afterlife, some Buddhist practices can be useful to deal with stressful events (mindfulness, developing impartial awareness by separating consciousness from thoughts, and so forth). But if your life is mostly happy with pleasures to enjoy, it doesn't really make much sense to delve hardcore into Buddhism to eliminate desire, if you don't believe in rebirth.
So, part of determining which philosophy/religion is a better path for a person, would involve that person assessing the metaphysics of each worldview as well as seeing it if matches their personality. One or the other might make more sense (or neither) given certain views about how the universe works, and given facts about their current life (pleasurable or painful, easy or difficult, happy or sad).
Both Stoicism and Buddhism tend to be fairly hardcore as far as philosophies go, perhaps ideal for particularly difficult situations. For example, James Stockdale credited Stoicism (particularly Epictetus) with getting him through seven years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, through years of solitary confinement and torture. And Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc was so experienced with meditation that he could burn himself alive without showing any pain. If one finds themselves in a horrible situation, or if one has desires that will never be fulfilled, Stoicism and Buddhism can be approaches to deal with that harsh reality.
In more casual circumstances, in my opinion, neither Buddhism or Stoicism are ideal, although certain aspects of them can be useful for the more distressing periods in life.
I remember reading somewhere that Aristotle didn't regard compassion as a virtue since it's based more on emotion rather than reason or social duty. I could be wrong about this and don't really agree anyway.
Hello Pen,
I didn't intend for them to be definitions or make things as black and white as Stoicism vs. Buddhism. At the time, I had thought that this distinction was representative of how some of their respective practices may diverge more. It seems now this is likely not the case.
Yeah, this makes sense. At a certain point, there is no refining or 'fortifying' because the mind is just doing its thing spontaneously.
I didn't intend for them to be definitions or make things as black and white as Stoicism vs. Buddhism. At the time, I had thought that this distinction was representative of how some of their respective practices may diverge more. It seems now this is likely not the case.
Yeah, this makes sense. At a certain point, there is no refining or 'fortifying' because the mind is just doing its thing spontaneously.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Compassion is one of the five main social virtues for Aristotle.
My mistake. Thanks for the fact check.
Thanks. The commonalities tend to interest me more than the differences. They both treat suffering as mostly a mental anguish resulting from certain cravings and aversions that can be altered or eliminated with practice.
Does one suspend judgment indefinitely whenever impartially observing? Or is there a certain threshold of necessity when action becomes practical? Is most action excessive?
I like this idea of the changing context determining the utility of various perspectives. It is probably best to prepare for the worst. In my case, with working two jobs, it helps to be more Stoic, but I tend to be more Epicureous during recreational or hosting situations.