Discussions

Check out this ancient Greek and latterly Roman philosophy originating several hundred years BCE and dying out in approximately 1st century.

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

It seems to be undergoing a revival and is strikingly similar to aspects of Buddhism in many ways, particularly in respect of the first to third noble truths. The person who seems to be the leading authority is Dr Keith Seddon who is British and who has founded the Stoic Foundation: http://stoicfoundation.host-ed.me/index.htm

Dr Seddon has written a book that turns about to be a course book from a correspondence course he used to run. However there is a another introductory book that seem to get favorable reviews: A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy by William B Irvine:
http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic/dp/0195374614/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344024981&sr=1-1&keywords=William+B+Irvine

Where is seems to depart from Buddhism is that some adherents go with an idea of a "universe as god"/force theory and causal determinism seem to go a step beyond dependent origination in that it suggests that once the conditions are set in motion, then everything happens as it should. This is not fatalism because there is a rationalization about how free will works.

Anyway, quite interesting to see how western philosophy developed until it was canned in 529 AD by order of the Emperor Justinian I, who perceived their pagan character as being at odds with the Christian faith. Hmm not got a good legacy these christians.

JohnT I agree, seems that the Stoics
do have very similar take on how to
practice a form of mindfulness in
that they distance themselves from
their emotions and look at them
with that stoic calmness?

Hope you send me a friendly smile now
if I repeat it can have to do with
brand nameing again. Through personal
acts the Buddhists have established
their brand name so effectively that
we compare Stoics with Buddhism and
not Buddhism with Stoicism.

Stoics have failed to have a Sangha
going up to now while Buddhists have.

But as you say there are people
who try to rekindle the tradition
of stoicism or a modern take on it.

I find it interesting too.
Even Epicurianism get attempt to
make it known again. How are they
different from Stoicism?

Flanagan when he write about Buddhism
seem to compare with Aristotle and his
take on "flourishing and Eudaimonia" something.

Ayn Rand and her "Objectivism" they loved
the "flourishing and Eudaimonia" words too.

All that support my naive take on
brand naming. These old guys have good reputation.
Compare with Pantheism. They refer back to Einstein
and Spinosa and that works but when they refer back
to Toland then that fails due to him have no repute.

Seems very many need a reputable name to attach
their practice to?

Just some random notes of things I learned on a 2,5 day seminar about the Stoics...

...similarities:

• The stoics thought that not the world itself is a problem but how we perceive it.
• They also thought that being attached to things makes us suffer
• They also thought that it's possible to change that perceptions
• They had something like a meditation practice (more like "remember this" or "think about this")
• both religions in some sense are inhuman

(About the first three points: I think every idiot could come up with that when well educated and able to think about it for a sufficiently long time.)

...differences

• The stoics weren't so much interested in understanding the world but only in how to live within it
• the stoics emphasized reason (in contrast to much of the buddhist literature out there that seems to suggest that our rational thinking is causing most of the problems )
• the stoics weren't world-renouncing like the early Buddhists. They played active roles in the society (a thing that Buddhism, imho Buddhism should start doing as soon as possible. The heritage of the world-renouncing ascetics is still visible in contemporary Buddhism).
• to the stoics nothing is "self" except the morality.
• They believed in something like a monotheistic god (Zeus). But my impression is that it was more like a tool to create a theoretical basis for their teachings (see the first point).

I am interested in that claim too.
"both religions in some sense are inhuman"

I did find them to be rather similar
and to be unrealistic and idealistic
and maybe also elitistic but being as
word challenged as I am I failed to
find the right word for it. I don't
trust that I used "in-human" but I
had a similar gut feeling but did not
know what word to use for it.

So I look forward to get what you refer to.
It seems to be a known view though.
Expressed in different ways so please share
your take on it.

The stoics emphasised reason while the buddhists emphasise direct experience.

That seems true but even Buddhists seems to miss
how important feelings are for to be able to base
their actions on good reasoning.

My naive example are that Buddhists still sit lotus
instead of ergonomic healthy chairs tells me that
they fail to include feelings in their reasoning.

Doug,

Sorry about the religion thing, this was simply me being sloppy. When I talked about issues with reason I refered to contemporary, popular Buddhist teachings like "don't think so much" and so on.

Candol, are we talking about the same thing? You say "we end up rationalising and that means we are no longer being very reasonable". Isn't reason and rationality the same? So at this point you actually stop to be think rational? So it's not the rational thinking that causes the problem but the fact that you actually stop to think rational?

Can you give me a link to the Einstein-thing? I know about his opinion about inductive versus deductive reasoning, but both is, well, reasoning.

Doug and Eric. One of the reasons I find the stoics inhuman because of their radical approach to morality and reason. Some of them, for example, claimed that you can be happy while being tortured if you're able to maintain your moral integrity. There's no place for despair/irrationality/immorality in their philosophy. The reasons for Buddhism are a bit more complex. I need more time to write them down in an ordered way.

Mufi, I have thought it myself some 30 or 20 years ago
and I do have read others have similar views too on Buddhism.

But then I never thought I would be active here. I where
an aggressive atheist and despised not only religion
but also spiritual views.

Now my body tells me that I need to find out
why it feels religious and have felt religious
for some 60 years or so whithout me not even
being aware of it due to my hatred of everything
religious.

So I did not pay attention so much to details
after failing to do meditation of the sort that
I thought where required of a Zen Master.

I wish I had known about the more relaxed
versions of Jodo Shinshu then and not now
when I maybe have only a handful of years left.

I have behaved so selfish all my life.

saibhu are supported by our very own
Stephen Batchelor when he talked with
Lloyd Geering at the Church in New Zealand?

Can Christianity and Buddhism Remain Relevant?

I made a comment to it too.
http://secularbuddhism.org/2012/01/10/can-christianity-and-buddhism-remain-relevant/#comment-2368
saibhu says

both religions in some sense are inhuman

while Stephen say it like this
Buddhism ... renunciation of this world and ... (From my poor memory)

I think that the word choice you made saibhu throw us
but I did remember that it is something similar but
not the word inhuman. But it can be seen as inhuman
to renounce this world because it is the only life we know to have.

saibhu: Thanks for the explanation.

Yes, I think it's quite natural for us humans to work under the assumption that some things can "give you lasting satisfaction." But, then, it's also quite natural to question our assumptions and, if we discover them to be flawed in some way, to then modify or reject them.

To some extent, I think this insight is common wisdom. For example, I enjoyed a cup of coffee this morning. The cup is now empty, my satisfaction with it is gone, and I'm sort of craving another cup. But why bother? It's not like I need it for health reasons (plus it might make me jittery and later have trouble sleeping to have that much caffeine in my body), and I know it will just be a segue to another craving.

What's more radical and harder to accept is that everything in life is like that cup of coffee - including our long-term relationships to family and friends. I suppose that one way to cope with this information is to revel in the "small stuff" - i.e. the numerous, fleeting moments of modest pleasure that we experience with our loved ones, as we all age and eventually die. Satisfaction needn't last in order to qualify as such, and thereby continue to to be an object of desire, and frankly I see nothing wrong in going on living this way - whether the Buddha would have approved or not.

However, I also see a lot of room for dysfunctional behavior in this approach, to which that essay I cited aptly speaks when it says:

Phrases which overlap with attachment in this context and which can help to clarify its meaning are: possessiveness in relationships, defensiveness, jealousy, covetousness, acquisitiveness, and competitiveness. Through non-attachment, these are attenuated and overcome.

So one way to look at Buddhism (and Stoicism) is as a means of conceiving and achieving a virtuous moderation in our lives (which Aristotle also had a lot to say about, albeit without much practical advice).

Thanks to both of you.
I kind of agree. I find it logical
that a Monk" that has to live on
gifts from the lay population has
to tone down any lust for to have
family life and thus need to not
cling to that drive within him
or her self ?

Haha they sometimes drive professional
athletes to not make sex before an important
match? Too much of a distraction. Soldiers
they treat that way too.

There are some or many similarities with
being a hired soldier and a Buddhist.

You shave off hair and change to a uniform
and you change name and you have a hierarchy
and a teacher and you are not supposed to be
an individual anymore. No family life either.

You get taught the "behavior code" of the group.

Some do criticize Military for their inhuman way
they treat the new soldiers for to take away their
individuality. That which makes them a human and
instead they practice will make them into a killing
machine that follow orders. To never disobey or to
question the truth of an order.

That is also something I tend to see in Buddhism.
I spent rather long time using google to find
ex-buddhist forum where ex-buddhists shared their
views on Buddhism and I failed to find one such
forum at all. While there do exists for Christians.

My naive take is that the indoctrination that
one get as a Buddhist is so strong that none
can be an ex-buddhist. Once in your have no
way out of Buddhism. Sure one can stop to do
practice and allow long hair and some individuality
but you forever bound to be loyal to the Dharma?

I could find anti-buddhist that had other -ism
like strong dogmatic Communist views and they
saw Tibet Buddhism as a political movement.

But they where not ex-buddhist AFAIK. They may
have been born in a Buddhist traditional family
but they had not identified with Buddhism as
what many Western Buddhists do.

I guess I should look for ex-stoicists too.
or ex-post-modernists. I doubt such exists.

I don't know if inhuman is the best word for it.
But a kind of identity that is so strong that
one can never have another identity after it?

Sorry that sounds not logical but that is how
it looks to me when one talks to those that
have stopped doing the practice. They have no way
to talk about it like a normal human being.

It is an odd experience and kind of frightening.

Just a quick note having looked at the intro to that piece on Pyrrhonianism: Madhyamika Buddhism is only one school of Buddhism. It isn't correct to identify "Madhyamika" with "Buddhism", though it did profoundly influence the Mahayana. It did not similarly influence Theravada.