Stoicism and Buddhism

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.
waryoffolly
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:30 pm

Stoicism and Buddhism

Post by waryoffolly » Wed Dec 24, 2014 4:32 pm

Has anyone checked out stoic philosphy?
It's quite astounding to me how many similarities there are with buddhism.
Supposedly the skeptic Pyrhho studied in India and brought some philosophy back with him. -Perhaps he is the link between the two?

Here is a very, very abridged intro to stoicism:
http://hackthesystem.com/blog/stoicism- ... hilosophy/

Please read at least the two "steps" in the article before responding.

vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Stoicism and Buddhism

Post by vinasp » Wed Dec 24, 2014 5:23 pm

Hi waryoffolly,

Here are two works on Pyrrhonism which I read recently and found to be very interesting. Both are available as free PDF files online - just google.

1. Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism.
Adrian Kuzminsky. Lexington Books, 2008.

2. Towards A Philosophy of Tranquility: Pyrrhonian Skepticism and Zen Buddhism in Dialog. Carlo Jamelle Harris, MA Thesis, National Chengchi University, Taiwan, 2009.

Regards, Vincent.

waryoffolly
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: Stoicism and Buddhism

Post by waryoffolly » Wed Dec 24, 2014 9:07 pm

vinasp wrote:Hi waryoffolly,

Here are two works on Pyrrhonism which I read recently and found to be very interesting. Both are available as free PDF files online - just google.

1. Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism.
Adrian Kuzminsky. Lexington Books, 2008.

2. Towards A Philosophy of Tranquility: Pyrrhonian Skepticism and Zen Buddhism in Dialog. Carlo Jamelle Harris, MA Thesis, National Chengchi University, Taiwan, 2009.

Regards, Vincent.
Thanks, I'll take a look at these.

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Stoicism and Buddhism

Post by clw_uk » Wed Dec 24, 2014 11:29 pm

It seems that all three have the same end but approach it from different angles.

The stoic uses reasoning to tamper emotional responses, however this is a past the post response.

The Pyrrhoinic sceptic weighs up both sides of an argument/perception and decides that since he can't know what is true he should then suspend judgement (and so then experience calm)


A follower of Buddha rests in clear mindfulness and awareness and so doesn't react to dhammas in the first place (after seeing their nature).


Personally I have tried all three philosophies and I have found scepticism to be the most ineffective in daily life, although useful for debates.


Stoicism was easier but I found that since it was past the post it only tampered dukkha

Dhamma I found to be best in not experiencing dukkha in the first place. That being said I still find some use from the other two schools.
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 4029
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Cremation Ground, Phrao District, Chiangmai

Re: Stoicism and Buddhism

Post by Dhammanando » Thu Dec 25, 2014 12:37 am

clw_uk wrote:The stoic uses reasoning to tamper emotional responses, however this is a past the post response.
The Stoic writers had quite a panoply of exercises for cultivating apatheia, and not all were past-the-post. For example, one of the most elementary ones is that the prokopton (Stoic sage-in-training) should begin each day by recollecting the most terrible things that could happen to him in the course of the day. This would enable him to be mentally prepared if any of these terrible things should actually happen, indifferent to any milder annoyances that might arise, and in for a pleasant surprise if the day should pass with no adverse events of any sort.

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Stoicism and Buddhism

Post by clw_uk » Thu Dec 25, 2014 12:41 am

Dhammanando wrote:
clw_uk wrote:The stoic uses reasoning to tamper emotional responses, however this is a past the post response.
The Stoic writers had quite a panoply of exercises for cultivating apatheia, and not all were past-the-post. For example, one of the most elementary ones is that the prokopton (Stoic sage-in-training) should begin each day by recollecting the most terrible things that could happen to him in the course of the day. This would enable him to be mentally prepared if any of these terrible things should actually happen, indifferent to any milder annoyances that might arise, and in for a pleasant surprise if the day should pass with no adverse events of any sort.

True but these practices always seemed to kick in as a recollection that occurred past the post, probably due to no knowledge of the three marks/D.O.


I have a lot of time for stoicism however it can only get you so far, or least it was that way for me. That being said stoicism does seem to have the same goal as Buddhadhamma.


However doesn't stoicism achieve apatheia through the wrong view of materialism and determinism, the stoics being proponents of both?
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

Disciple
Posts: 362
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:13 pm

Re: Stoicism and Buddhism

Post by Disciple » Thu Dec 25, 2014 4:42 am

Basically the same as buddhism minus the rebith and karma

User avatar
dhammacoustic
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:30 am
Location: Dhammaville

Re: Stoicism and Buddhism

Post by dhammacoustic » Thu Dec 25, 2014 7:07 am

clw_uk wrote:However doesn't stoicism achieve apatheia through the wrong view of materialism and determinism, the stoics being proponents of both?
If the wiki page isn't lying, it seems to be a highly spiritual approach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
Uppādā vā tathagātanaṃ anuppādā vā tathagātanaṃ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā idappaccayatā. Taṃ tathagāto abhisam­buj­jhati abhisameti. Abhisam­bujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti. ‘Passathā’ti cāha; ‘avijjāpaccayā, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā’. Iti kho, bhikkhave, yā tatra tathatā avitathatā anaññathatā idappaccayatā-ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamup­pādo.
:heart: namō tassa bhagavatō, arahatō, sammā sambuddhassā

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Stoicism and Buddhism

Post by clw_uk » Thu Dec 25, 2014 11:52 am

silver surfer wrote:
clw_uk wrote:However doesn't stoicism achieve apatheia through the wrong view of materialism and determinism, the stoics being proponents of both?
If the wiki page isn't lying, it seems to be a highly spiritual approach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

They still viewed things in a material way and held a determinist view of the world, with fate playing a central role. It's one of the arguments why one should remain calm, because of fate.

I also don't understand you distinction between materialism and spirituality. I don't see any problem with someone being a materialist and being spiritual, the stoics are evidence of that. I would argue the epicureans were/are as well.


"The fundamental proposition of the Stoic physics is that "nothing incorporeal exists." This materialism coheres with the sense-impression orientation of their doctrine of knowledge ...

All things, they said, even the soul, even God himself, are material and nothing more than material...

the individual is not free. There can be no true freedom of the will in a world governed by necessity."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/stoicism/#H3


So here we have a school that adheres to deterministic materialism. I would say you can possibly draw parallels between the thought of Ajita Keskambali, or possibly Makkhali Gosala, and Stoicism.
Last edited by clw_uk on Thu Dec 25, 2014 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 4029
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Cremation Ground, Phrao District, Chiangmai

Re: Stoicism and Buddhism

Post by Dhammanando » Thu Dec 25, 2014 2:51 pm

clw_uk wrote:However doesn't stoicism achieve apatheia through the wrong view of materialism and determinism, the stoics being proponents of both?
Yes, that for me is what makes them so intriguing. They start out from the most appallingly rotten premises (theism AND materialism AND fatalism — one can scarcely imagine a worse combination of wrong views!), yet in spite of this they get it exactly right about eudaemonia (i.e. there is nothing in the Gotamī Sutta that a Stoic would deem an unworthy aim) and almost exactly right about the nature of the sage (the Stoic sage differs from the Buddhist arahant only in that the former is expected to busy himself with public affairs, while the latter is expected to be a bhikkhu, and thus more like the uninvolved sage pictured by the Stoics' great rival, Epicurus).

But the fact that the Stoics sought apatheia on the basis of radically wrong views may also go some way to explaining why (on the Stoic writers’ own admission) none of their number actually achieved it — that is, nobody is regarded as having graduated from a prokopton to a proficiens, not even such worthies as Heraclitus and Socrates whom the Stoics held as their patriarchs. In effect, therefore, Stoic sagehood appears to be a merely theoretical ideal.

User avatar
dhammacoustic
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:30 am
Location: Dhammaville

Re: Stoicism and Buddhism

Post by dhammacoustic » Fri Dec 26, 2014 2:04 am

clw_uk wrote:
silver surfer wrote:
clw_uk wrote:However doesn't stoicism achieve apatheia through the wrong view of materialism and determinism, the stoics being proponents of both?
If the wiki page isn't lying, it seems to be a highly spiritual approach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

They still viewed things in a material way and held a determinist view of the world, with fate playing a central role. It's one of the arguments why one should remain calm, because of fate.

I also don't understand you distinction between materialism and spirituality. I don't see any problem with someone being a materialist and being spiritual, the stoics are evidence of that. I would argue the epicureans were/are as well.


"The fundamental proposition of the Stoic physics is that "nothing incorporeal exists." This materialism coheres with the sense-impression orientation of their doctrine of knowledge ...

All things, they said, even the soul, even God himself, are material and nothing more than material...

the individual is not free. There can be no true freedom of the will in a world governed by necessity."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/stoicism/#H3


So here we have a school that adheres to deterministic materialism. I would say you can possibly draw parallels between the thought of Ajita Keskambali, or possibly Makkhali Gosala, and Stoicism.
I didn't mean materialists cannot be spiritual, I only said their approach is not materialistic, as they seem to believe in deliverance through methods. And their idea of fate is probably their version of kamma.
Uppādā vā tathagātanaṃ anuppādā vā tathagātanaṃ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā idappaccayatā. Taṃ tathagāto abhisam­buj­jhati abhisameti. Abhisam­bujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti. ‘Passathā’ti cāha; ‘avijjāpaccayā, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā’. Iti kho, bhikkhave, yā tatra tathatā avitathatā anaññathatā idappaccayatā-ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamup­pādo.
:heart: namō tassa bhagavatō, arahatō, sammā sambuddhassā

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Stoicism and Buddhism

Post by clw_uk » Fri Dec 26, 2014 2:36 am

I didn't mean materialists cannot be spiritual, I only said their approach is not materialistic, as they seem to believe in deliverance through methods. And their idea of fate is probably their version of kamma.

Explain the difference between a materialistic approach and an approach through "methods"?
And their idea of fate is probably their version of kamma
No their version of fate is fate. It means that A causes B which causes C and that A had no choice to do B and B had no choice to do C.

Kamma in Buddhism isn't a ridigid determinism, that was the domain of the Jains and Ajivakas. You come across as someone who has a limited understanding of what the stoics actually taught and what their approach to Nibbana was. As has been shown by Ven. Dhammanando they had a noble goal in sight but their outlook was tainted by various wrong views, namely that of materialism, hard determinism and pantheism.



"Their theory of the universe is indeed a completely deterministic one; everything is governed by fate, identified with the sequence of causes; nothing could happen otherwise than it does, and in any given set of circumstances one and only one result can follow — otherwise an uncaused motion would occur."

Robert Sharples
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
dhammacoustic
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:30 am
Location: Dhammaville

Re: Stoicism and Buddhism

Post by dhammacoustic » Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:09 am

clw_uk wrote:Explain the difference between a materialistic approach and an approach through "methods"?
I said deliverance through methods.

I cannot define "materialistic approach" either, as in; approach to what? When I said Stoics' approach seems spiritual, I meant the approach is spiritual, not their mental fabrications regarding the nature of matter/material.
their version of fate is fate. It means that A causes B which causes C and that A had no choice to do B and B had no choice to do C.

Kamma in Buddhism isn't a ridigid determinism, that was the domain of the Jains and Ajivakas. You come across as someone who has a limited understanding of what the stoics actually taught and what their approach to Nibbana was. As has been shown by Ven. Dhammanando they had a noble goal in sight but their outlook was tainted by various wrong views, namely that of materialism, hard determinism and pantheism.
As far as I'm concerned, according to the doctrine of kamma, A also causes B which causes C and so forth. Kamma is part of paṭiccasamuppāda. And the mind either has momentum and is part of kamma (the law of cause and effect that covers any substratum of existence), or it's set free through awakening.

As for my understanding of what the Stoics actually taught, I found out about Stoicism about 2 days ago, thanks to this thread :) I only had a quick look on the wiki page.
Uppādā vā tathagātanaṃ anuppādā vā tathagātanaṃ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā idappaccayatā. Taṃ tathagāto abhisam­buj­jhati abhisameti. Abhisam­bujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti. ‘Passathā’ti cāha; ‘avijjāpaccayā, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā’. Iti kho, bhikkhave, yā tatra tathatā avitathatā anaññathatā idappaccayatā-ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamup­pādo.
:heart: namō tassa bhagavatō, arahatō, sammā sambuddhassā

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Stoicism and Buddhism

Post by clw_uk » Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:57 am

As far as I'm concerned, according to the doctrine of kamma, A also causes B which causes C and so forth. Kamma is part of paṭiccasamuppāda. And the mind either has momentum and is part of kamma (the law of cause and effect that covers any substratum of existence), or it's set free through awakening.
So you adhere to the wrong view of the Ajivakas which the Buddha said was the worst of all the wrong views (even hedonistic materialism came off better). He did state that it would have been better for the world if Makkhali Gosala, a proponent of your view, had not been born at all.

Kamma doesn't = determinism. Kamma only occurs when there is clinging which gives rise to a "me" that intends. The result of kamma only ripens when there is a "self" to experience it.

When craving/clinging stops then there is no more birth of "I" and so no more intentional action (Kamma) and no result of intentional action (Kamma vipaka). This is D.C. and it's cessation.

To put it another way, the path of Buddha leads to the stoping of jati (birth) of self, and so kamma (intentional action) and it's result stops.

That's completely different from deterministic Ajivaka karma which you seem to support.

Paṭiccasamuppāda is based on conditionality, not on determinism.
Last edited by clw_uk on Fri Dec 26, 2014 4:33 am, edited 9 times in total.
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Stoicism and Buddhism

Post by clw_uk » Fri Dec 26, 2014 4:01 am

As for my understanding of what the Stoics actually taught, I found out about Stoicism about 2 days ago, thanks to this thread I only had a quick look on the wiki page.
Fair enough :) I can see how their teachings can seem benign, however their doctrines are not much different from those who Buddha argued against. As shown above, they don't lead to freedom from dukkha.
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 62 guests