Buddhism and Stoicism 2: Five Differences
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2017
- Buddhism and Stoicism are in many ways allied philosophies. However in this video we will look at five ways that they differ. We will be looking in specific at early Buddhism and Stoicism as reflected in its Classical Greek and Roman texts, and as explained in Massimo Pigliucci's recent book "How to Be a Stoic".
Massimo's book can be found here: amzn.to/2ykf95o
My previous video considered five ways that they were similar. While this video considers differences, their similarities overwhelm their differences, at least for most aspects of the path up until nearly its very end.
For further on this topic I would recommend a TH-cam discussion between Massimo Pigliucci and Robert Wright on Stoicism and Buddhism: • Stoicism vs. Buddhism ...
Greg Lopez's essay comparing Buddhist and Stoic notions of mindfulness can be found here: modernstoicism.com/sati-prosoc...
Check out my Patreon page: / dougsseculardharma
---------------
Please visit the Secular Buddhist Association webpage!
secularbuddhism.org/
Disclaimer: Amazon links are affiliate links where I will earn a very small commission on purchases you make, at no additional cost to you. This goes a tiny way towards defraying the costs of making these videos. Thank you!
1. Different metaphysics
2. No Self in Buddhism
3. Martial rhetoric in Stoicism
4. Meditation in Buddhism
5. No clinging to views in Buddhism
Thank you so much. This guy takes forever to make a point.
Doug gives context to his ideas, in a way that we can somehow use our critical thinking skills to validate the points he's making. It's good to have an overview as Guido's provided above but Doug's videos are quite well structured.
I know this is a brief summary of the points talked about in the video, despite that I just wanna leave a note on the second point.
I'm not a student of the literature on Buddhism, however the second point isn't entirely true from an enlightened perspective as far as I understand. There is very much a self and while this self is who we are, it is not the entirety of who we are. Accepting the role of the self is important, because going against it would just create an alter ego.
@@wanderingfree149 dude he spent an average of 3 minutes on each point. It wasn’t that bad. You really think by just reading a few words of 5 points that you have a good understanding of it now?
@@L4Festa what about you is the same by day as night? What about you never ages, gets ill, tires, declines, ages, or decays? 👍 Answer that please 🙂 what reads consciousness? What writes to consciousness? What filters I/O?
I embrace many concepts in Buddhism (and Stoicism), but reject many of Buddhism's metaphysical claims as I align with a naturalistic/materialistic worldview. Your channel beautifully explains the core essentials of Buddhism and differentiates them from the metaphysical baggage that is not necessary to enjoy the psychological benefits of the practice.
Thanks! 🙏
pigliucci is a clear-thinking, articulate guy. glad he's in the world.
Agreed Matteo, thanks!
Ah! Politics! Such an important element that is missing from buddhism. Of course, beyond the rules of the sangha. My journey into the dharma, at the moment, is infantile, however, I do keep coming back to "how can the dhamma better inform modern society?" I do have Bhikkhu Bhodi 's collection of suttas on the subject, but this is another area where I think a merging of stoicism and the dhamma would be fruitful. Thanks again Doug!
Thanks Alejandro. I can’t remember if I mentioned my video on Bhikkhu Bodhi’s collection, I think I did but in case I forgot, it’s here: th-cam.com/video/Oi0V3Pycru0/w-d-xo.html
Hi Doug. Thank you for your very informative videos on Secular Buddhism. I recently discovered your channel on TH-cam and I have been thoroughly enjoying the depth and clarity of understanding that your videos convey, and the breadth of philosophical ideas these explore.
I personally find the commonality of ideas between ancient Greek Philosophy and ancient Indian Philosophy interesting. These videos on similarities and differences of Stoicism with Secular Buddhism are an excellent contribution. I would like to suggest a similar exploration of the similarities and contrast of Epicurean philosophy with Secular Buddhism in a future video, especially how Secular Buddhism might find much common ground with the idea of Epicurus' ataraxia, or suggested practices for Epicurean stress-free living. Thanks again.
Thanks for your kind comments and for the suggestion suresh, it's something I'll keep in mind. 🙏
I have seen so far two of yours videos and I enjoyed them. Really like the way you explain things.
Thanks DA, glad you are finding them useful!
really good video, i really liked how you compared the both philosophies without a condescended view on stoicism, and how the cultural influencies molded their views.
Thanks a lot Bruno, glad you found it helpful!
Hi Doug. I didn't read Epictetus that much. But Marcus Aurelius is like a Greek Buddha, not wanting to exeggarate but you should read him definetely. He consistently gives the themes of impermanence, interconnectedness, and no-self doctrine in his writing. Also in my own opinion, what they call rational mind, and control over center is the "volition, will, intention" of Buddhism. Also this is a pretty interesting passage from his book Meditations, might seem very similar to the Heart of a Meditator :) :
Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius - Meditations, Book IV
"Men seek retreats for themselves - in the country, by the sea, in the hills - and you yourself are particularly prone to this yearning. But all this is quite unphilosophic, when it is open to you, at any time you want, to retreat into yourself. No retreat offers someone more quiet and relaxation than that into his own mind, especially if he can dip into thoughts there which put him at immediate and complete ease: and by ease I simply mean a well-ordered life. So constantly give yourself this retreat, and renew yourself. The doctrines you will visit there should be few and fundamental, sufficient at one meeting to wash away all your pain and send you back free of resentment at what you must rejoin. And what is it you will resent? Human wickedness? Recall the conclusion that rational creatures are born for each other's sake, that tolerance is a part of justice, that wrongdoing is not deliberate. Consider the number of people who spent their lives in enmity, suspicion, hatred, outright war, and were then laid out for burial or reduced to ashes. Stop, then. Or will you fret at your allocation from the Whole? Revisit the alternatives -providence or atoms - and the many indications that the universe is a kind of community. But will matters of the flesh still have their hold on you? Consider that the mind, once it has abstracted itself and come to know its own defining power, has no contact with the movement of the bodily spirit, be that smooth or troubled: and finally remember all that you have heard and agreed about pain and pleasure. Well then, will a little fame distract you? Look at the speed of universal oblivion, the gulf of immeasurable time both before and after, the vacuity of applause, the indiscriminate fickleness of your apparent supporters, the tiny room in which all this is confined. The whole earth is a mere point in space: what a minute cranny within this is your own habitation, and how many and what sort will sing your praises here! Finally, then, remember this retreat into your own little territory within yourself. Above all, no agonies, no tensions. Be your own master, and look at things as a man, as a human being, as a citizen, as a mortal creature. And here are two of the most immediately useful thoughts you will dip into. First that things cannot touch the mind: they are external and inert; anxieties can only come from your internal judgement. Second, that all these things you see will change almost as you look at them, and then will be no more. Constantly bring to mind all that you yourself have already seen changed. The universe is change: life is judgement. "
Yes indeed Mert, I have read Marcus Aurelius and there is a lot of wisdom to find in his writings. Though no-self is not typically a characteristic one finds in Stoicism. As for the rational mind, it's different from "volition" (saṅkhāra) in Buddhism, since saṅkhāras can be for good or ill, and the rational mind in stoicism is only for the good.
@@DougsDharma This is an interesting nuance I hadn't picked up on, as I only recently found out about the stoic, western 'buddhas' lol. They are fascinating especially in the similarities. I lean more towards the Buddha here, as evil people are indeed well organized and 'rational' in their thinking. Much of their evil is on account of their over-rationalizing, stripping themselves of the human element, and viewing the man like a sort of machine.
Thanks for another well-argued video, Doug. Your channel really is a treasure trove and your enthusiasm for sharing ideas shines through. On attachment to ideas, it is worth noting that the Stoics were open to correction and didn't really have a quarrel with competing schools (although there was some bad feeling towards their main rivals, the Epicureans). 'All truth is mine,' wrote Seneca, meaning that he wouldn't refuse to acknowledge the correctness of a saying or teaching from outside his own tradition. Stoicism is sometimes called 'Cynicism for shy people' - in other words, they didn't go as far as the Cynics in their utter rejection of convention. I think there was a sneaking suspicion among Stoics that they should really be Cynics, but that they bottled it. 'If you cannot be a Cynic, then at least be a Stoic,' wrote Epictetus, as if being a Stoic was a philosophical consolation prize. Imagine if the writers of the Late Stoa had the opportunity to consider Buddhism!
Thanks Antain, yes that would have been a fascinating conversation! Thanks for the info about Stoicism, I can see there is a lot to learn.
Of early western philosophies I can relate to the cynics the most as a rebellious cultural critic and a black sheep.
Hey Doug...I believe stoics have a calming or mediation called "A view from above" or at least it's, to some degree, on Marcus Aurelius' Mediation book. I believe all religions philosophies have some sort of meditation some call that a prayer some call it meditation. I recall my grandmother reciting a prayer with beads in her hand.
Yes for sure the word “meditation” has a long history in the West.
It might be more specific to say Buddhism has more advanced meditations techniques. While Stoicism is better at bringing practise into everyday life, e.g. the family, workplace, etc.
It becomes confusing because there are two meanings to the word meditation (to contemplate a text, vs meditation). And because modern stoics are quite aware of Buddhism and have brought more mindfulness practises to stoicism.
@@nowithinkyouknowyourewrong8675
It’s really fascinating to me because later on in Christian contemplation there arose deeper meditation practice, and Justus Lipsius tried to combine Stoicism and Christianity into Neostoicism. It’s a shame these strains of thought didn’t fruit more fully! It’s weird that Westerners now flock almost exclusively to Eastern traditions for these deeper experiences. But I guess it’s easier to remove the more traditional and superstitious or material belief structures and take out the kernel of meditative practice you want when you’re not actually immersed in that culture. People also forget there are “Hell Parks” in Thailand where parents take their kids to scare them with Buddhist devils. 😂
This is awesome, really clear, concise.
Thanks this was a great resource for the rap I just dropped about stoicism on my channel.
Hey great! Glad to hear it.
Hi Doug, I've just started watching some of your videos. Great work by the way on the high-level comparative analysis between stoicism and buddhism. On this video, particularly, I'd like to mention that the 5th difference between classic Stoicism and ancient Buddhism may not actually be that pronounced as you understand. I'd guide to some readings from Epictetus discourses where he insists on the importance of "impressions" and the value that there is "judgement" over those impressions. In there, and maybe Epictetus is an exception to other stoics, it is clear that the "training" or the meditation over one's our own judgements (the self you might say) is what determines or not a course of action. I think in that aspect you might see elements of "non identification" to a particular rigid view or in Epictetus words "judgements over impressions". It is the quality or the training of that "judgement" which could change over time that is the important thing to train in the self, not a rigid immutable judgement.
I'd definitely recommend readings by Epictetus. Between Marcus Aurelius, Seneca and Epictetus, I personally find Epictetus has some of the most practical teachings given how harsh his early personal life really was as a beaten slave.
Absolutely great work. I'll keep following your videos.
Thanks so much Guilherme, it does sound interesting!
Great video.
Question: Does the Stoic belief in the rational self really imply an unchanging core to the self? Certainly it’s a debatable point. Marcus Aurelius made several comments about what Buddhists call impermanence:
“Everything’s destiny is to change, to be transformed, to perish-so that new things can be born” Meditations (12.21).
There’s no contradiction in saying one has complete control over the rational self, and also the rational self can change over time. But the point about modern science not really backing Stoicism up on the claim of conscious control over deliberate actions and deliberate thoughts is an important question for Stoics.
Hi Dave and thanks for the great questions. Like Buddhism, Stoicism has had many elaborations over the years so it’s hard for me to make blanket statements about it. But for example if we think of Epictetus’s notion of the rational will as the ‘divine spark’ within us, it’s going to be something that isn’t changing. That’s so whether or not we literally think of it as a part of God. In general, reason is thought of in philosophy as a fixed set of capacities; it’s not the sort of thing that could change, because that would imply that reason itself was variable, as though 1+1 might equal 2 today and something else tomorrow.
I think the problem of control, freedom of the will as it were, is something less of an issue in that some version of that problem comes up in any system of voluntary action. It is only a particular problem for Stoicism insofar as Stoics like to make a point of having ‘complete control’.
Might be neat for you to compare Buddhism and Epicurean thought. The importance of friendship, of contentment with simple things and the Middle Way, and the ideal of equanimity and Epicurean ataraxia. All the best!
Yes, I did a little of that in this video: th-cam.com/video/kV0bo_YDOb0/w-d-xo.html
I find all of these videos very interesting and thought provoking. I have to agree with the earlier comment by Mert that the volitional aggregate of the self in Buddhism is most closely related to the rational component of stoicism of which we only have control. This would appear to be important in explaining how we produce good or bad karma as taught by the Buddha.
Yes it's interesting to speculate about!
If one were to become a realized stoic and no outside events could force a reaction on you: Would you have a full experience of that event? is not the reaction an integral part of the experience?
It's a good question Raymond, but it's one you'd have to consider for yourself. IS the reaction an integral part of the experience? Or would you have a fuller, healthier, or more skillful experience without such reactions?
This was a really awesome video
Glad you enjoyed it, Echinoderm!
Man I love your channel
Thanks so much!
Thanks! This is informative.
Glad it was helpful, Annie! 🙏
Hello, I am currently reading Meditations, incredible powerful insights indeed, pure light, but maybe naive?
Some of Marcus exortations are about the visions of humans as cooperatives individuals, but reality has been showing so many cruelty and wars, as in nature there is struggle, so the rule is WAR empirically speaking....
What do you think about?
But he have a very constructive approach a possible life saving narrative I dont want to let go easy...
Another 2 questions I would like to ask refers to Happiness Enthusiasm Joir Vivre in this system of thought, my understanding is that memento mori is so urgent, so crucial and so desperately needed that maybe can bring immediate fullfilment living life at fullest doing what we want...
That means even override virtue?
Some people pointed that the real drawback of stoicism is shut down all great emotions, birth of a son is not much happiness but also covid 19 not so much sadness too...
That is not against memento mori and amor fati?
Maybe people confused forebearance and resilience in crisis with indiference to everything.
That's right. I'm no expert in Stoicism but I believe the point is not to shut down emotions, but to shut down the unwise emotions such as greed and hatred. As to humans as cooperative individuals, I think we have the capacity for both: cooperation and war. The only question is which impulses we feed.
@@DougsDharma Thank you Doug! Take care
Hmm not sure how about clinging to own ideas in stoicism, but surely any approach in speech should be oriented with lack of Passion in both philosophies. Also i think as a Control in buddhism is considered as an illusion, and also through my medative experience I Like to merge both philosophies by renaming Word 'control' over influence. Whenever self is ilusory, IT is surely influential part of some process. IT is worth to notice that self is not connected to everything in the same way. I believe the stoic way tends to focus the Mind at the Field of influence rather than on wondering on uncertain future or feeling of regret in the past. So maybe rather than training the ability to control better we could say noticing the dofference in sphere of influence and lack of influence.
Thank you
You're very welcome Gordon!
2:11
Buddhism explains more pellucidly about the nature of phenomena and is superior to it.
There was an ancient stoic philosopher who was in contact with Buddhism in India. I just can't remember his name.
I'm not sure who that would be. So far as I know the Stoics had no contact with Buddhism.
Thank you for this video. I know you consider yourself a secular Buddhist, but I think you do Buddhism a grave disservice when you label the metaphysical aspects "speculative." The whole point is that through realization, one comes to know these facets _directly_ , and not through speculation. Of course, our samsaric minds cannot comprehend how such knowledge could even be possible, and so to _us_ they may indeed be speculative. Maybe it would be more honest to say "I don't know."
Thanks for your comment, Aditya. Some say they know rebirth directly. Others say they know the one true God directly. I don't know any of these things directly, so to me they would be speculation. And indeed I often do say, "I don't know".
I consider myself a "Buddhist" - except when it comes to self and free will. I truly mean no offence but I think many Buddhists are fundamentally confused about this. Seems to me that in whatever sense it is true to say that I am not you and you are not me, that is the definition of "self" that matters; it may not be permanent but that's not the same as it not existing. As for free will, most philosophers are "compatibilists" who define free will as freedom from the will of others and not necessarily from deterministic laws of cause and effect (because who cares about that kind of free will anyway?). This may seem like semantics but I think these definitions of self and free will are necessary just to function intelligibly in the world, and I suspect Buddhism's denial of them are going to be a rather large barrier to acceptance of Buddhism in the West.
I have a video on Buddhism and free will where I discuss compatibilism: th-cam.com/video/Hf1E91yKtvQ/w-d-xo.html Free will wasn't a topic in early Buddhism, so it wasn't really discussed as such. As for self, the Buddha never denied the existence of an ordinary self, only a permanent, unchanging self as posited for example in Brahmanism and Jainism. Check out my playlist on self and nonself in Buddhism: th-cam.com/play/PL0akoU_OszRjA9n0-U24ZCpfEQVFxeGz2.html
@@DougsDharma Thanks I will check those vids out. However, I think it would be news to many Buddhists that the Buddha didn't say there is no self- Buddhists are constantly talking about the self not existing, being an illusion, etc. For one thing they say "no self" not "no permanent self" which strikes me as two extremely different claims. But maybe this was just some bizarre later interpretation of the Buddha- I think of "no self" as a piece of "institutionalised overthinking" of the meditation experience.
You are mistaken, Sam. Buddha simply talked about the lack of a permanent self. Buddhists have always known that. When they say that there is no self, they mean that there is no permanent self. Buddha didn't make any mistake here. He was right. Even western philosophers know that now. So, Buddha is certainly gonna be accepted by more and more of them in the future. That's exactly why Secular Buddhism is on the rise ...
@@DipayanPyne94 If that's what Buddha meant, that's fine. But that doesn't change the fact that so many people who call themselves "Buddhist" do tend to say "the self is an illusion." But regardless, "no self" is a terrible way of saying "no permanent self," because a) these are two very different claims, and b) saying "no self" will of course lead people to think Buddhists mean that there's, well, no self.
@@samspeedy6473 Actually, the definition of 'Self' in Buddhism is different. During Buddha's lifetime, Self meant 'Permanent Self'. The Original word is Atman/Atta. They have always been understood as 'Permanent' by Hindus. Buddha encountered many Atmavadins (Self Believers) during his lifetime. That's why, he talked about Anatman/Anatta. It translates to 'No Self', but Self here means Permanent Self. That's why, all the confusion ...
What is speculative to many is not speculative to all. Who has the authority to declare what is speculative to all? 🤔😐
Nobody has that authority. As you say, what may be speculative to one person may not to another.
@@DougsDharmatruth is needed here. Anyone who is living is not dead. So he cannot speak about what happens before or after life. That is speculation and not subjective. This is where a fusing between stoicism and buddhism is needed imo
Mr. Doug 🙂 Mr. Buddha did not have views. In some ways, you're really deep and hit a target, but it seems the wrong target sometimes. Be careful with words, because people are listening to them much more seriously than you may use them. Views would be opinions+hearsay, right? Knowledge is not the same as views. The point of views is that they are inherently not Dhamma, they are wrong speech, opinions+hearsay. Not truth, not fact, not knowledge. It is nearly irrelevant as to whether we are hurt by the opinions of others as to our views.
Other notes:
Hume: what part of him could not find a self?
The world does have direction. Despite cycles, it is within a process of decay, entropy, cosmic expansion (and contraction).
Rational will? What is that? Rationality applies to logic+reason, not will/intent. It's like saying: rational apple. Intent/will has roots in conscience+knowledge, not rationality. It is logic+reason that develops conscience+knowledge. Control of intent/will is an illusion? What? How did you derive that? It's our fundamental nature. I'd say that our spirit is 1) awareness, which reads consciousness, 2) conscience, which filters and may be synonymous with kamma, and 3) a power of intent which writes to consciousness to initiate a movement in body, mind, dream, or attention. Or to hold those things firm+steady where they are.
According to your definition of secular, you cannot create the compound secular Buddhism rationally. It's an absurd compound. It's like saying you're a student of apples, but you don't care to understand trees or cores because those things are speculative. I don't understand the reason for applying secular to Buddhism? Is that supposed to make secular 'views' nearer to truth?
There is nothing wrong with evaluating a view for truth. The Buddha did not express views, he expressed knowledge. This part of the talk is a mess because you use the term views interchangeably with knowledge+truth.
Concentration arises from Samadhi??? Isn't that completely backwards?
Mindfulness is not specifically to become aware of mental moves. It is specifically for the purpose of resisting the drowning of awareness by Samsara, consciousness, contact, perceptions, etc.
OMG. This talk was extremely disorienting. I feel dizzy from trying to comprehend it all. I am saying these thing with a good nature. With respect. They are just things arising in my mind as I listen. And I listen because I learn from you about things I have not studied. Please understand that. And I am not sharing all the good points I agree with.
Is Right View a view?
@@DougsDharma it is specifically a non view. A non view is a right view, right?
Right View is the first of the eight path factors in the Noble Eightfold Path, and belongs to the wisdom division of the path.
The definition
"And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view." - DN 22
It is knowledge.
Let's keep in mind that nature is physics+chemistry. It is purely mechanical. It is the spirit that is not mechanical. Without a spirit, every creature would be completely predictable, like a plant, or virus, or bacteria, or any other physical process. Without a spirit, everything would be mere machinery. Entirely predictable, action-reaction. No creature would have any autonomy. Your ability to intend one way or another way is proof that you are not machinery. And proof that you wield the power of intent, and not chemical processes/machinery.
I'd guess part of the problem here, a view 😐 I'd like to share, is the way modern education indoctrinated us to believe that the brain is supreme. And that is the view of self that the Buddha attacks, so to say. The material roots of self, or anything arising from material roots. But the brain is just an organ, like the liver, heart, and kidneys. It performs a biological function. That's all it does. It is not I or me. It is not worthy of defense or offense. It just does what it does, as a non sentient organ. One thing somebody asked me, and I asked myself even before that, is how can I know about Cessation if I have no body+mind, or even in the SNPNNP? Because I do say that. That Cessation is a complete total disconnect from consciousness, from body+mind, that it is death. And I say that the SNPNNP is like a deep sleep state in full awareness, where the body+mind have been completely shut down by the same biological mechanism that does these things when we sleep. In the case of the SNPNNP, it may be fair to say that we remember our dreams, so if that is true, at least that much of the brain can be functional when we sleep. I don't necessarily agree with that as the true explanation, but I agree that it is a fair argument. But I also have said that I know, in Cessation, death, that any intents associated with mind+body, consciousness, the aggregates, will instantly bind me back to it, so I dare not. So, how can that be true? How can I say that I am completely severed from the entirety of the universe even spacetime itself, yet claim to have a memory of conscience preventing any intents associated with mind+body consciousness if I am totally severed from the entire material universe?
And it's a good question. And I am both a scientist+engineer, and I don't say things frivolously unless I am just being playful for some reason. And as much as I can swear to any truth, I am sharing truth that is seen directly, inarguable knowledge from that position/state. In no way at all am I mincing words or speculating. To move on ... We don't have firm knowledge on what exactly the nervous system is capable of, nor our spirit. The reason I share my knowledge is in the hopes that someone will benefit, and exceed it, and generate even more knowledge. Let's consider recognition for example. You can recognize an acquaintance in a split second, instantly, even if it was only someone you met years ago, they look different now, and you only knew them for an evening. Is the brain really capable of that? Humans have fast nervous system transmissions, but these things are measured in the dozens of feet per second, and even animals can perform the same feats, having slower nervous systems. It's chemistry, the brain. A lot of chemical reactions would have to take place to perform such feats, even if the recognition was a matter of a person looking exactly as you remembered. Not to mention that we can do such things even if a person looks almost nothing like we remembered. I don't have all the answers to everything, but I think we have some evidence here that we may be attributing much more to the brain, a piece of meat, than is realistically warranted. Can it do amazing things like aid in the formulation of ideas, remember multiplication tables, aid in contemplation, aid in manifesting various actions we intend? Yes, I'd say so. Is the brain where every image and memory that we've ever had is stored? Can the brain actually perform recognition as described above? I'd say no. That is ascribing too much power and ability to a lump of fat. The spirit may have greater capacities than I am aware of from brief 8 second experiences with it in isolation. That's really not enough time for in depth investigation. I think maybe the test would be: if a memory is subject to fading, then it belonged to the brain. If a memory is the same for your entire life, it is the property of something beyond materiality. In any case, I would like to thank you because I think these are important things to consider, and I won't say anything unless someone takes some action to evoke a reaction in me, and I hope it benefits all that care to understand related matters.
cry nega stocism mogs buddhaism to the river ganges and back
Cope
@@AwakenZen yeah i realized its cope