Stoicism and Buddhism

[robinturner]

Buddhism and Stoicism are two philosophies that have influenced me considerably, even though I can't fully subscribe to either.

Both philosophies start from the premise that our main problem is ignorance. Buddhism claims that suffering exists because of the three poisons of ignorance, anger/hatred and craving (often incorrectly translated as "desire"*). It also claims that of these, ignorance is the first link in a chain of causation that produces all the other stuff. Similarly, Stoics claim that misunderstanding concerning what is important leads to irrational thoughts, and thus to patheia, or negative emotions. In both philosophies, it is our tendency to regard pleasurable events as good in themselves and to be grasped at all costs, and to flee from painful situations whatever the consequences, that lead us to suffering. Stoics reserve the term pheukton, "to be fled from", for events which are morally objectionable, while unpleasant or painful events are merely alepton, "not to be taken".** In other words, we should choose, say, health over sickness, but should not regard it as a catastrophe if we fall ill (a common Stoic saying is "Nothing terrible has befallen you"). In fact, both schools of thought hold that, given the right mental attitude, unpleasant events can be extremely valuable in developing ourselves.

Ethically speaking, there are few differences between Stoicism and Buddhism. Both regard immoral actions as the result of faulty perception concerning the self (e.g. that it is possible to benefit ourselves at others' expense). Both stress the essential unity and fellowship of human beings, though Buddhism goes further in including non-human animals. Buddhism also places more emphasis on compassion. While the Buddhist view is well-known, Stoic attitudes take a bit more unravelling. Literal compassion, in the sense of feeling the suffering of another person is, for the Stoics, not a virtue but a vice: you are disturbing yourself to no fruitful end, and furthermore, you are indulging in the same philosophical error as the person who is suffering (i.e. assuming that unpleasant events have absolute significance). On the other hand, kindness is a Stoic virtue, and we are obliged to help others, so a degree of sympathy seems necessary. Marcus Aurelius explains this paradoxical situation with the analogy of helping a child look for a lost toy: you do not experience the same suffering as the child because you do not regard toys as particularly important, but nevertheless you appreciate their suffering, and take steps to lessen it, even though from a Stoic point of view such measures can only provide a kludge rather than a real solution. However, I suspect that in practice, Stoic confusion on this issue led to a lack of sympathy for human frailty which in turn could be used to justify some of the barabarities of the time (I'm thinking of late Stoicism here).

The main theoretical differences between the two philosophies are metaphysical. Buddhists regard the phenomenal world as illusory, while Stoics see it as real; the same goes for the self (Stoics tended to be pantheists, so while the human self was a facet of God, it was a perfectly real facet). There are also some obvious differences such as views on reincarnation (Stoics seem to be remarkably uninterested in what happens after we die - the important thing was to die well).

To sum up, I suppose I see Stoicism as a kind of Western Buddhism.



* I'm no scholar, but since the Dalai Lama, who presumably knows a thing or two about this, has stated that some desires are good and lead to happiness, we can assume that "desire" is not a good translation of trishna. IIRC, a literal translation is "grasping".

** We should not fall into the trap here of assuming that because phenomena such as pleasure and pain are termed adiaphora or "indifferent", that there really is no difference. There is a difference, and pleasure is preferable to pain, but it is a relative difference in the realm of things which have no absolute significance.

Comments

[solri.livejournal.com]

I have argued elsewhere that there is less difference between Stoicism and Epicureanism than meets the eye.

Note: "I have argued elsewhere" is academese for "I haven't managed to get this published."