Buddhism & Stoicism

[DT Strain]

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

 

[samabudhi]

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

Hello

You make it sound like having passions is a disease.
From the Mahayana Buddhist perspective, passions are natural, it is only when you try to cage them that they get out of hand.

I'm thinking of an analogy where a country has citizens rules by a government. Now the government considers the citizens defilements, since they can revolt and overthrough the government. The irony is clear here that the government wouldn't exist without it's citizens, and that the path to a peaceful relationship with them does not involve trying to thwart them. Anyone who's done history will see this has never works, the master/slave government/public model that is.
Governments want to be free from the public as much as the public wants to be free of governments. In the same way, disturbing thoughts and emotions want to be free from you as much as you from them.

Desensitising ourselves to passions is not an option either, that would be like an autocracy; and neither is your concern of letting them run amock - anarchy.

Buddhism is the middle ground between such extremes. It is developing a harmony through wisdom and compassion for each other's circumstances.

 

[DT Strain]

Thanks Samabudhi,

Actually, I'm using the Stoic sense of the word passion. In that sense, what you describe as extreme passion run amok IS (alone) what Stoics mean by "passion". So, by Stoic vocabulary, passion is a disease (literally - it's "pathos" or pathology).

To help discuss Buddhism and Stoicism together, we need to match up our terms, so let's say that what I'm talking about in my first post is "excessive overwhelming and extreme emotion that disables or misleads a person".

With this understanding, if you will, I would greatly appreciate it if you could re-read my first post and then tell me again what you think of the manner in which I am seeking to practice both traditions. Thanks much!

 

[samabudhi]

I can’t say much about Stoicism except that not judging externals as
evil or good sounds very much Buddhist, so it looks like they’ll go together well.

You’ll excuse my bias toward the teaching of the Buddha, but embodying Buddhist teachings enables one to overcome this ‘problem’ before it arises, as it arises, and after it arises. So the entire path is contained here.

Before arising: A life of merit prevents negative states of mind from arising in the first place, like excessive passion/greed. Since no impure action takes place, no karma is acculumated, and thus no negative states of mind (ignorance, greed and hatred. These are the three poisons, the root of all suffering). This corresponds with the practice of loving-kindness/compassion.

Arising: Meditation trains the mind so that states of mind already arisen are calmed. This corresponds with the first type of meditation, shamatha/calm-abiding/tranquility meditation. The mind is put at ease, as if taking a hold of the reigns of a chariot which is out of control.

Before arising: The second meditation is known as vipashyana/insight meditation. Once the mind is calmed, you can turn your attention to rooting out negative propensities, known as kleshas. This prevents them from arising in the future.

After arising: Prayers and various practices of devotion and humility relieve one of the burden of guilt from past actions which caused harm.

{This is my own enumeration of the arising of kleshas. You won’t find it put this way anyway else, to the best of knowledge. }

 

[DT Strain]

Thank you for this Samabudhi. I have a question about what you said in the "Before Arising" section...

It seems to me that what you are saying is that living virtuously will lead to a life free of bad karma, and therefore the violent passions will not arise. However, isn't this process cyclical, rather than linear? By this, I mean that it is often these negative passions that *lead to* actions which are contrary to a life of merit. Then, this unvirtuous life builds negative karma, which then leads to more negative passion, and round it goes.

Therefore, how can living a life of merit be the first step, as you have outlined it here? Any point in that cycle we might deem a first step would be just as dependent on the previous stage in the cycle. It seems to me, then, that some important realizations about virtue are needed in order to take that first step. I understand that you are not as familiar with Stoicism (I myself am unfamiliar with many things, of course). But I would encourage you to read up on it. I think you will find that it would make a helpful addition, as I have.

Truth is truth, and perhaps we may find it expressed and practiced in different ways in different contexts. It still seems to me, after having read some, that there should be a way to mine treasures from both philosophies.

 

[samabudhi]

Truth is truth, and perhaps we may find it expressed and practiced in different ways in different contexts. It still seems to me, after having read some, that there should be a way to mine treasures from both philosophies.

No doubt. Realised beings are more often than not most broadly learned. They don't let their knowledge limit themselves. Unattached.
Personally I have found Taoism a valuable source of teachings. But then so did Buddhists in China, hence the formation of Chan Buddhism (Zen). If stoicism helps, them definitely, one should persue it.

However, isn't this process cyclical, rather than linear?

Unfortunately, it is. This is samsara, the wheel of birth and death, to which we apply all manner of techniques and views in order to escape its nature, suffering.
Samsara is driven by karma, which is the cause effect relationship. Understand how karma works, and you will understand how to defeat it. Padmasambhava, the great Tibetan yogi said, 'Your view should be as vast as the sky, and your understanding of karma, as fine as barley flour.' Or the 14th Dalai Lama, 'Know the rules well so you know how to break them,' in other words know how karma works so you know how to defeat it.

However, we have to start somewhere, and the easiest place to start in action, the easiest place to apply our intention, the innermost layer of who we are, is with morality. The results of a moral life are immediate, the karmic cycle of cause and effect is very short in this respect. If you are amoral, you feel bad immediately. Contrive to hurt someone, and you are already suffering before you even commit the act. Follow arbitrary spiritual paths, and the karmic cycle is long. You'll spend ages in delusion before you click.

It seems to me, then, that some important realizations about virtue are needed in order to take that first step.

The 8-fold noble path of the Buddha starts with perfect view. This is the beginning of the path. This view is the four noble truthes. With a perfect view, perfect intentions arise, with perfect intentions, perfect speech, perfect actions, livelihood, effort, concentration, and mindfulness arise one after the other. So pragmatic, so simple.

 

[DT Strain]

Thanks again for these words Samabudhi. This rings of truth to me