Buddhism & Stoicism

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I am more familiar with Stoicism and have been attempting to practice it, with much satisfaction. But I have also been interested in learning more about Buddhism for some time now.

I’ve been reading a book on Buddhism, and I noticed
something interesting about its relationship to the
passions, compared to the Stoic approach to the
passions.

It seems to me that Stoicism tries to adjust our
perception such that we will not judge externals as
evil or good. This way, a consuming passion will not
arise in us in the first place.

If we do experience such an emotion, then it is too
late - the very occurrence of the emotion suggests
that our perception was not truly adjusted, and we
must continue to try to “get it” more deeply and
intuitively.

Buddhism, on the other hand, instructs us to be
mindful of our feelings - let them flow through us in
a transient manner, all the while being completely
self aware and conscious of them. This will give us
an existential view such that they will not overtake
us.

It seems to me then, that Stoicism is a good tool for
preventing overwhelming passion, but in cases where we
fail and do experience the emotion, certain Buddhist
teachings can act as a “catch-valve” - a second chance

  • whereby we can handle the passion in a less harmful
    way. We can then return to Stoic meditations in order
    that we might prevent future outbreaks.

What do you think of how I’ve positioned these two
perspectives on the passions in a cooperative role?

Thanks :slight_smile:

2

I feel you might be misinterpreting Buddhism when one talks about being ‘mindful of feelings’. A main idea of Buddhism, like Stoicism, is to control passion. However while Stoicism seeks to…restrain emotion (in the sense of changing one’s world view), Buddhism has the paradoxical approach of accepting it. The theory is that in order to be rid of something, you simply must come to terms with its existence. In other words, once you are at peace with your anger, it will dissapear.

3

Exactly. That’s what I’m saying. But I’m saying that, since each of them attempts to address the passion at different stages, they can both be used simultaneously.

You said that Stoicism seeks to control emotion by changing world view. This means that the emotion shouldn’t arise in the first place if your view is truly correct. However, we are not always perfect in our Stoic practice. At times, we will falter and when we do, the emotion will arise.

At that point, we can then deal with it in a Buddhist fashion, by “accepting it” and “coming to terms with it” as you put it. You are at peace with it and it disappears. So, both techniques are being practiced simultaneously because they approach the passion at two different stages.

If you ever became a hypothetical perfect Stoic sage, you would never falter and would therefore never need to resort to “coming to terms” with that Buddhist technique (although other areas of Buddhist practice would likely still be very useful). But then, becoming the ideal perfect Stoic sage is probably never truly 100% achievable. Thus, the utility of the Buddhist method of dealing with emotion as an “ace up the sleeve”.

4

However, my point is that through Buddhist method, while is does adress passion intially at a different stage, will eventually control passion, just as Stoicism does, but it does it by letting it dissapear on its own.

For example, if I see my meter reader coming to the door, I can be a Stoic and hold onto my dog’s collar and telling her to be quiet, restraining her but still having her ‘exist’ as a part of me. Or I can be a Buddhist and say ‘she’s going to bark and that’s that’, and thus put her outside. This way she is existing independantly from me, and in terms of the passion metaphor, she is not existing at all. Different methods, same results.

The problem with using Buddhism as an ace up one’s sleeve is that Buddhism is not only a world view like Stoicism (to change one’s world view from Stoicism to deal with passion seems like a contradiction to me), it also seeks to expound emotions such as compassion. In addition, accepting passion in Buddhism is not as simple as saying ‘I’m angry, oh well’. It means many long years of mediation and introspection. If a Stoic has the time for that, they would be better served perfecting the Stoic method.

5

I agree that both have the same effect in the end on would-be uncontrollable passion, but when two things act in different ways toward the same end, is it not good to employ both to make doubly sure that end is reached? For example, if you really want to make sure your counter top was germ free, you could use both an antibacterial cleaning agent, and a sterilizing lamp. As long as the lamp did not cancel out the effect of the agent or vice versa, this would seem to be practical. Perhaps this is what you mean below…

But aren’t you using the word “emotion” in two different senses in the above? It seems to me, we have a few concepts here that need clear delineation…

Emotion:
I don’t think Stoicism would reject all of the things we commonly think of as “emotion”. When Stoicism deals with emotion, it is referring to great emotional stirrings that would make us suffer or act out of control. So, we must be clear which version of this word we mean.

Compassion:
Some would describe this more as a set of priorities and values on which we act, rather than an emotion (or at least, rather than MERELY an emotion). In either sense, I’m sure that a sensible version of compassion is not what is meant to be excluded by Stoic thought. Therefore, the expansion of it through Buddhist methods should be compatible, as long as we’re not talking about a compassionate emotion so out of control that it leads us to do unwise things. I don’t think Buddhism would advocate that either.

Passion:
In one sense, perhaps the more common, this means doing something with conviction which includes emotion. Stoicism would then not exclude every version of this. However, in the sense that Stoicism uses the word, it means (as with “emotion”) an uncontrollable stirring of the soul which leads us into folly and even evil. So, by the common conception of the word, the Stoic use would be referring to a specific subset only. We must be clear which of these two versions we are referring to.

One thing I think would be a mistake, would be to find a word (for example, “emotion”) in a paragraph from Stoic literature and Buddhist literature, and then think that they are talking about the same thing and must therefore be either compatible or incompatible based on that sort of thing alone, rather than looking at the concepts behind the words.

In short, if we are careful about what all of the definitions mean precisely in (1) Buddhism, (2) Stoicism, and (3) common usage, then it seems to me these two philosophies might be simultaneously practiced with consistency and maintaining their integrity - although I admit I still have much to learn about each. :slight_smile:

I think what might convince me otherwise are examples where the substance of what is being said in one school is directly contradicted by the substance of what is being said in the other. This would take the form of either an irresolvable and important difference in conception of reality, or an irresolvable and important difference in how we should think or behave. By this, I don’t simply mean differences, but logically exclusive differences.

If I say, “Fred’s coat is red” and you say “Bill’s pants are green” these are different, but not irreconcilably so. I haven’t seen Buddhism say “Fred’s coat is red” and Stoicism say “Fred’s coat is blue” yet.

6

I think the main problem with the way you’re thinking DT, is that you’re confusing what both disciplines are trying to accomplish. Buddhism is actually for the removal of all concepts, all ideas, all moral concepts, good and bad. Any of these things is considered “trishna” or clinging.

Anyway… even if these two disciplines were after the same thing, I don’t think it would make sense to use all of them. Or at least not if their methods conflict. If their methods are compatible, then you really only need one of them right? I mean, if there are 500 ways that you can wash your car, does it make sense to use all 500 ways to do it? Or would it make more sense to use the one way that works the best?

7

None of them (Buddhism, Stoicism, etc) are perfect, nor are we perfect in our practice of them. This leaves gaps in performance. So, I see it as finding as much help as we can, from as many sources as we can. Therefore, I think the cleaning agent/light analogy I used above is a good one, and answers your question on that.

If, on the other hand, there is a conflict, then that wouldn’t work. As I said though, I haven’t seen such a conflict so far (even if they are trying to accomplish two different things as you say, this is not the same as “conflict”).

Incidentally, what does a Buddhist do when he finds himself in a situation where someone needs help and risk is involved in helping them (drowning person in rough water for example)? If the philosophy leads to the same answer as one that includes ethical principles, then they are practically the same in their ends. Besides that, I think most people would say the eight-fold path includes some ethical dimension (right thought, right action, right livlihood, etc), even if they are not called so in name.

But perhaps we differ on that because you’re looking at ethics as stone-tablet-delivered “thou shalts”. I look at ethics as “wise living principles”. Our difference may therefore only be semantic on that point.

8

Good note on the definitions DT, that was a part I overlooked, from now on when I say ‘bad passion’, I mean the type that is uncontrolled.

Attachment (or clinging, as some call it) is a very important aspect of the Buddhism, but a suprisingly irrelevant one here, in my opinion. The aspects of the Eightfold (called right, perfect, or whole) are methods used to free oneself from attachment and desire, and the Buddha himself said that these principles are like a raft, once you’ve crossed the river, enlightenment, you shouldn’t carry the raft around on land, but you do need the raft to cross the river in the first place (at the very least he said something like that, I’m Zen, and we’re notorious for our casual approach to scripture, as it were). Futhermore, I agree with DT in that both Buddhism and Stoicism promote a theory of flexible wise living principles.

I’ve shifted my position slightly DT, I see now there isn’t a conflict of method in terms of the two philosophies, and thus it is possible to practice both. However, I don’t think it’s a good idea. From what I see of Stoicism and from what I know of Buddhism, both are all encompassing philosophies the require a specific method of thought and living. Thus it seems to me to be spreading oneself too thing to use both. It would be like trying to play linebacker (that’s a position, right?) and reciever at the same time, attempting to do both together weakens yourself overall.

Now you could argue that you could simply switch out and into the two methods. However, to me at least, true control of oneself is in every action and comes from a specific mode of thought, one that eventually becomes instictual. I don’t think I could be able to adapt the Stoic method, except after a lot of work, and that would simply distract me from my practice of Zen, weaking my self control in the process.

Like I said, I do agree now it’s possible, but personally I don’t see it as a good idea.

9

the buddhist (and hindu) idea of cessation and how to acheive it seems highly stoic to me.
the ascetic monk is stoic. stoicism, in this sense, can relate to a lot of different religions.