I don't think the idea is to detach from emotions or the demands of life - but to be aware of your emotional responses and make choices rationally rather than reactionary.
Thank you ... perhaps the attempt to demonstrate the similarities between Buddhism and Stoicism is inherently difficult. Buddhism (I think) advocates withdrawal from the world, while Stoicism advocates the opposite, e g. the assumption of worldly/community responsibilities.
However, if one thinks that "desire is the root of suffering" is all there is to Buddhist understanding, then they're quite mistaken. I do wish that the original post had a mention or footnote of just how misleading that articulation is. I don't blame the author for it, because one cannot dive into all the details and needs to appeal to a general audience, and that articulation was probably best for the comparison.
The author mentioned the key idea, the Four Noble truths and especially the second per "desire is the root of suffering." That's a good explanation for a one-off conversation, but the problem is that most people never go deeper, and thus walk away with what becomes a misleading undersanding. It's a catch-22 of any educator or expositional writer. So, with that caveat....
"Desire" to a western, English audience is going to sound like "I desire stuff and that causes me suffering." As in desire is an activity that I do. Rather, it's better articulated from a Buddhist perspective that desire is who and what we are. Hence, ending suffering is about transforming who we are such that we cease desiring. But even that is misleading by itself. We need to stop writing "desire" or a term that sounds like its an activity that we do, that it presumes a person who can choose or not to desire. It is the I, or self itself, that must be transformed so that desire is "extinguished" like the flame of a candle (a common metaphor for it). But as we go further down that path, we realize that the self and selfhood is itself an impediment.
But before we get there, I need to explain why and how. The Buddhist notion of the experiencing self is like sitting at the bank of the river. That river, like life, is always flowing by and always will. If we attach to anything floating by, we will suffer when it leaves our lives. If we hold onto the past, we hold onto what has floated by and will never come back. If we hold onto the future, we set ourselves up for disappoinment for something that may never arrive, and if it does, will still leave us. If we attach to the present moment, we are doing better as we will always have the present ... but the present is always the most emphemeral of events. We need to live in the present, enjoy the stream and love what we have, both when it's there, when it's gone, and when we're not quite sure what we're going to get. We need to stop attaching, to stop insisting, deep down, that this stream should stop or start because it never will and we only set ourselves up for suffering.
There's a famous story illustrating how selfhood is an impediment, which I can summarize if it's of interest. It's the story of the polished mirro.
As a Christian I have often considered how the notion of living life in an active attempt to free oneself from pain and suffering(in this life), appealing as it sounds, is the very opposite of what Christ taught. Jesus said that if you follow Him you will suffer for it, and that in this life there is no escape from that reality. But it is the source, meaning and truth of this suffering that ultimately matters, not that it goes against our earthly preferences.
It is interesting to note that the fundamental teachings of Zeno(Courage, temperance, justice, wisdom) and Gautama Buddha(freedom from worldly attachment) were very much in alignment with the teachings of Jesus, however their underlying realities and destinations, their views of the meaning and purpose of suffering, their differing views of “self” and in Christ’s case the meaning self-love in relation to loving one’s neighbor, and the manifest reality of human sin and of evil, could not be more divergent.
At their core, the question being asked by Stoicism, Buddhism and Christianity is the same: What is the true source of human freedom? We are asked to weigh in.
"What is the true source of human freedom?" is not the core question, and you're misreading history. It's a issue of historiography and historicity: you're taking a modern concept and reading it back into history because we post-modern (e.g., post-Enlightenment) westerners ask that question and think about such concerns. But that's at best not a good fit for stoicism, and is a blindfold for understanding Buddhism or Christianity.
The core question of Buddhism is, as described in the article, "what is the end of suffering?" In contrast, the very concept of "freedom" as the individual ability and right to pursue private interests did not exist for millenia later. As one gains expertise in Buddhism, it becomes more and more obvious how that simple "end of suffering" is misleading such that they would not understand why later Buddhist might say "Kill he Buddha if you see him."
In contrast, the stoics sought not the "end" of suffering as its cessation, but as a detachment of the "soul" (inner life) from the flesh. Again, they have no concept of "freedom." In fact, they have the opposite concept, which I'll illustrate in Homer's The Oddyssey. In a lightly edited edition of that famous story--as in they leave more of the ancient Greek cultural references intact through the translation process--Oddyseus is "possessed by the Gods" or Athena specifically every time he does something truly great. In ancient Greek, especially Athenian, culture, the idea was that one's virtue sanctified and hollowed one to be a vessel of the Gods. So, there is a real sense in which excellence lead to the total loss of "freedom." Now, the stoics as a group deviated from quite this mentality, especially as stoicism moved into the Roman empire. But there is still an echo of how true excellent allows one to escape the limits of mortality. So, we can conceive of stoicism more akin o that, "how do I escape the limits of mortality (morbidity, bondage, suffering)?"
Likewise, the core concept in Christianity, especially if we're emphasizing the Gospel of Christ, is "how may I be free from bondage?" This is understand to include the vagaries of life akin to stoicism, but comes from a Judaic worldview and mentality that deeply colors their conception of the relation of the mortal to the divine, which Christ is reinventing. Part of this is bondage to the Romans in he Gospel of Christ, but also the fact that Christianity was a religion of slaves and the marginalized. So, freedom from bondage had a strongly political sense. So, when he previous poster is writing about Christianity embracing suffering, it does so from the explicit position of assumed weakness. The weakness of the Exodus, of the brief period of the Kingdom of Israel, subjugation under Roman rule, etc. That's worlds away from stoicism.
In conclusion, only a superficial analysis makes these seem so similar, and it's self-induced blindness to read recent concepts like individual freedom into ancient cultures.
And yeah, I'm a professor and historical philosopher.
Thank you for this! I need to go back and re-re-read the article 😂 but I get your point about “being free from suffering” vs “what is the source of human freedom”
There are many fundamental differences between Stoicism and Buddhism, but both are compatible as responses to life, the universe, and the challenges we face. Buddhism does a better job in helping me define the nature of the universe and our small place in it (the primary cause of suffering is craving, which we must find a way to overcome) and providing a multi-phase path to right conduct. Stoicism helps me cope better with the things I can’t control, which is closer to everything than I would like. It is easier for my Western mind to understand, with close parallels to modern Cognitive Behavioral Therapies. There is deep resonance in these perspectives on our place in the universe and how to make it better, less painful, and more in tune with our small place in it.
I’ve recently started listening to a philosophy podcast and was fascinated hearing about Stoicism and Buddhism and how similar they are. Great article!
Hinduism, or at least Kashmir Shaivism, teaches that all religions are different paths up the same mountain. Having grown up in a fundamentalist church, I love the idea of one God, many names. And yet I am struggling right now to reconcile Christianity, the heritage of my people, and Kashmir Shaivism, the choice of my maturity. I know many people who follow both, including an internationally admired activist nun. I am unable to shake off the profound exclusivism of the Abrahamic faiths. “There is one name under heaven by which you may be saved.” If I lived in Biblical times, and carried my Hindu influences with me, I would have to side with Jezebel and Ahab and Baalism against Elijah and Obadiah and Yahwism—-for why couldn’t Baal carry you up the mountain as well as anyone? And yet, a still small voice whispers, “What if Elijah was right?” This while thing is causing me continual unease and perplexity. Suggestions appreciated
Can one ask if the focus on detaching oneself from the emotions, demands of life can be considered irresponsible and selfish.
I don't think the idea is to detach from emotions or the demands of life - but to be aware of your emotional responses and make choices rationally rather than reactionary.
Thank you ... perhaps the attempt to demonstrate the similarities between Buddhism and Stoicism is inherently difficult. Buddhism (I think) advocates withdrawal from the world, while Stoicism advocates the opposite, e g. the assumption of worldly/community responsibilities.
4th Maccabees is very much on the same page as these.
How are we to discipline the mind?
Who needs Stoicism or Buddhism, when he has Hermann Hesse? /love-it
This post is a good introduction to the concepts.
However, if one thinks that "desire is the root of suffering" is all there is to Buddhist understanding, then they're quite mistaken. I do wish that the original post had a mention or footnote of just how misleading that articulation is. I don't blame the author for it, because one cannot dive into all the details and needs to appeal to a general audience, and that articulation was probably best for the comparison.
Say more, if you please
The author mentioned the key idea, the Four Noble truths and especially the second per "desire is the root of suffering." That's a good explanation for a one-off conversation, but the problem is that most people never go deeper, and thus walk away with what becomes a misleading undersanding. It's a catch-22 of any educator or expositional writer. So, with that caveat....
"Desire" to a western, English audience is going to sound like "I desire stuff and that causes me suffering." As in desire is an activity that I do. Rather, it's better articulated from a Buddhist perspective that desire is who and what we are. Hence, ending suffering is about transforming who we are such that we cease desiring. But even that is misleading by itself. We need to stop writing "desire" or a term that sounds like its an activity that we do, that it presumes a person who can choose or not to desire. It is the I, or self itself, that must be transformed so that desire is "extinguished" like the flame of a candle (a common metaphor for it). But as we go further down that path, we realize that the self and selfhood is itself an impediment.
But before we get there, I need to explain why and how. The Buddhist notion of the experiencing self is like sitting at the bank of the river. That river, like life, is always flowing by and always will. If we attach to anything floating by, we will suffer when it leaves our lives. If we hold onto the past, we hold onto what has floated by and will never come back. If we hold onto the future, we set ourselves up for disappoinment for something that may never arrive, and if it does, will still leave us. If we attach to the present moment, we are doing better as we will always have the present ... but the present is always the most emphemeral of events. We need to live in the present, enjoy the stream and love what we have, both when it's there, when it's gone, and when we're not quite sure what we're going to get. We need to stop attaching, to stop insisting, deep down, that this stream should stop or start because it never will and we only set ourselves up for suffering.
There's a famous story illustrating how selfhood is an impediment, which I can summarize if it's of interest. It's the story of the polished mirro.
As a Christian I have often considered how the notion of living life in an active attempt to free oneself from pain and suffering(in this life), appealing as it sounds, is the very opposite of what Christ taught. Jesus said that if you follow Him you will suffer for it, and that in this life there is no escape from that reality. But it is the source, meaning and truth of this suffering that ultimately matters, not that it goes against our earthly preferences.
It is interesting to note that the fundamental teachings of Zeno(Courage, temperance, justice, wisdom) and Gautama Buddha(freedom from worldly attachment) were very much in alignment with the teachings of Jesus, however their underlying realities and destinations, their views of the meaning and purpose of suffering, their differing views of “self” and in Christ’s case the meaning self-love in relation to loving one’s neighbor, and the manifest reality of human sin and of evil, could not be more divergent.
At their core, the question being asked by Stoicism, Buddhism and Christianity is the same: What is the true source of human freedom? We are asked to weigh in.
If you read the Sermon on the Moment with care, you will see that Jesus did not come to show us how to live. He came to show us how to die
"What is the true source of human freedom?" is not the core question, and you're misreading history. It's a issue of historiography and historicity: you're taking a modern concept and reading it back into history because we post-modern (e.g., post-Enlightenment) westerners ask that question and think about such concerns. But that's at best not a good fit for stoicism, and is a blindfold for understanding Buddhism or Christianity.
If “what is the true source of human freedom” is not the core question, then what is it? I am genuinely curious to get more info on this :)
The core question of Buddhism is, as described in the article, "what is the end of suffering?" In contrast, the very concept of "freedom" as the individual ability and right to pursue private interests did not exist for millenia later. As one gains expertise in Buddhism, it becomes more and more obvious how that simple "end of suffering" is misleading such that they would not understand why later Buddhist might say "Kill he Buddha if you see him."
In contrast, the stoics sought not the "end" of suffering as its cessation, but as a detachment of the "soul" (inner life) from the flesh. Again, they have no concept of "freedom." In fact, they have the opposite concept, which I'll illustrate in Homer's The Oddyssey. In a lightly edited edition of that famous story--as in they leave more of the ancient Greek cultural references intact through the translation process--Oddyseus is "possessed by the Gods" or Athena specifically every time he does something truly great. In ancient Greek, especially Athenian, culture, the idea was that one's virtue sanctified and hollowed one to be a vessel of the Gods. So, there is a real sense in which excellence lead to the total loss of "freedom." Now, the stoics as a group deviated from quite this mentality, especially as stoicism moved into the Roman empire. But there is still an echo of how true excellent allows one to escape the limits of mortality. So, we can conceive of stoicism more akin o that, "how do I escape the limits of mortality (morbidity, bondage, suffering)?"
Likewise, the core concept in Christianity, especially if we're emphasizing the Gospel of Christ, is "how may I be free from bondage?" This is understand to include the vagaries of life akin to stoicism, but comes from a Judaic worldview and mentality that deeply colors their conception of the relation of the mortal to the divine, which Christ is reinventing. Part of this is bondage to the Romans in he Gospel of Christ, but also the fact that Christianity was a religion of slaves and the marginalized. So, freedom from bondage had a strongly political sense. So, when he previous poster is writing about Christianity embracing suffering, it does so from the explicit position of assumed weakness. The weakness of the Exodus, of the brief period of the Kingdom of Israel, subjugation under Roman rule, etc. That's worlds away from stoicism.
In conclusion, only a superficial analysis makes these seem so similar, and it's self-induced blindness to read recent concepts like individual freedom into ancient cultures.
And yeah, I'm a professor and historical philosopher.
And thank God you are
Thank you for this! I need to go back and re-re-read the article 😂 but I get your point about “being free from suffering” vs “what is the source of human freedom”
TLDR:
Free from suffering vs. free from moral limits vs. free from bondage.
If we must use the word "free," it needs heavy qualification.
There are many fundamental differences between Stoicism and Buddhism, but both are compatible as responses to life, the universe, and the challenges we face. Buddhism does a better job in helping me define the nature of the universe and our small place in it (the primary cause of suffering is craving, which we must find a way to overcome) and providing a multi-phase path to right conduct. Stoicism helps me cope better with the things I can’t control, which is closer to everything than I would like. It is easier for my Western mind to understand, with close parallels to modern Cognitive Behavioral Therapies. There is deep resonance in these perspectives on our place in the universe and how to make it better, less painful, and more in tune with our small place in it.
I’ve recently started listening to a philosophy podcast and was fascinated hearing about Stoicism and Buddhism and how similar they are. Great article!
Agree. Fascinating to read the comparisons between different philosophies from vastly different times and circumstances.
Hinduism, or at least Kashmir Shaivism, teaches that all religions are different paths up the same mountain. Having grown up in a fundamentalist church, I love the idea of one God, many names. And yet I am struggling right now to reconcile Christianity, the heritage of my people, and Kashmir Shaivism, the choice of my maturity. I know many people who follow both, including an internationally admired activist nun. I am unable to shake off the profound exclusivism of the Abrahamic faiths. “There is one name under heaven by which you may be saved.” If I lived in Biblical times, and carried my Hindu influences with me, I would have to side with Jezebel and Ahab and Baalism against Elijah and Obadiah and Yahwism—-for why couldn’t Baal carry you up the mountain as well as anyone? And yet, a still small voice whispers, “What if Elijah was right?” This while thing is causing me continual unease and perplexity. Suggestions appreciated