Presented to the Socratic Club at CBU by Andrew Cuff on Thursday, 2007.
The following essay, seeking to compare the seemingly unrelated philosophies of Stoicism and Buddhism, must first begin with a brief overview of both religions. I hope to conclude by stating the obvious parallels between Buddhism and Stoicism and speculating on how these came about. Furthermore, I hope to ascertain whether the ethical practices of either system are indeed viable.
Buddhism, an Eastern mystic religion that originated in India around the 6th century B.C., is very popular in almost every East Asian country, especially China. It was founded by Siddhartha Gautama, later known as “The Buddha.” The Buddha created this religion because of his frustration with the system of Hinduism under which he was raised. Disillusioned, he authored what are called the Four Noble Truths (paraphrased): 1) Life is suffering, 2) Suffering arises from desire, 3) Suffering can be lessened by the lessening of desire, and 4) This can be achieved through the eightfold path. The eightfold path, which I will not delve into here, is basically a guideline for right living, including how one should speak, act, think, etc. The rest of Buddhist thought is a massive collection of holy prayers and writings, basically comprising a pantheistic drama not unlike the Greek myths. A Buddhist eventually tries to achieve Nirvana, a true enlightenment of soul and body that leads to ultimate existence, which is practically non-existence, or the eradication of all suffering. To achieve this, a Buddhist must become more and more enlightened through meditation and following the eightfold path.
Stoicism is a Greco-Roman philosophy which arose in the 3rd or 4th century B.C. Credit for its invention usually goes to Zeno, who held a school at Citium where he presented the teachings of Stoicism. Stoicism is essentially the philosophy of self-denial and self-control. Zeno was quoted to have said, “Steel your sensibilities, so that life shall hurt you as little as possible.” Basically, Stoicism taught that if the will was in line with an essentially deterministic natural order, then it was obviously the most virtuous choice to align the will with this natural order. For example, if a man will not be your friend, then stop desiring his friendship. Then, if he changes his mind, begin to desire it once more. Stoicism assumed that the man with complete control over his emotions was a man of great honor. Coupled with the suppression of emotion was a faith in the gods, especially for the Roman military. A good Roman soldier would put his faith in Mithras, slayer of the bull. In these myths Roman men would find role models for Stoicism. Some famous quotes from Roman authors concerning Stoicism include the following:
Accept the things to which fate binds you, and love the people with whom fate brings you together, but do so with all your heart.
-Marcus Aurelius
Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else.
-Marcus Aurelius
Reason should direct and appetite obey.
-Cicero
To be content with what one has is the greatest and truest of riches.
-Cicero
A man is as miserable as he thinks he is.
-Seneca
A well governed appetite is the greater part of liberty.
-Seneca
As you can see, the Stoicist philosophy was the inspiration for the words of great Roman authors who claimed that self-denial was the path to happiness. It was this Greek philosophy that shaped the early Roman Empire, and today gives us an idea of what it was truly like to think like a Roman.
Having examined the philosophies of Buddhism and Stoicism, it is almost impossible to deny the relationship between the two. Buddhism calls for self-denial and personal calm as the path to heavenly enlightenment. Stoicism, similarly, calls for self-denial, but for the different reason of achieving peace on earth and being content. While Stoicism has no Four Noble Truths, it contains the exact same ideas. While it does not emphasize that life is suffering, it surely assumes it by stating that there is a way to live one’s life better, or with more virtue. Furthermore, Buddhism and Stoicism both include some form of “religious moderation.” Stoics basically inherit theirs, like much of their logic, from Aristotle. Aristotle’s moderation was known as the “Golden Mean.” It was meant to keep men from being extreme in any situation, classically summarized by the soldier who should not charge an unbeatable foe, lest he be a fool, nor should he run, lest he be a coward. Instead, he should stand his ground. Buddhism has a religious moderation known as the “Middle Path.” This is both an avoidance of extremism as well as a middle ground in metaphysical enquiries, such as existence versus non-existence. It is the way that Buddhists explain Nirvana, as a place where duality becomes unity. Both Buddhism and Stoicism even contain similar pantheistic myths to go along with the cultures in which they reside. Interestingly enough, these seemingly self-sufficient philosophies utilize religious myths alongside themselves for support.
I personally have no idea whether there is any possible historical connection between Stoicism and Buddhism. As far as my research has delved, the only possible link between the Far East and the Mediterranean is the conquest of the Macedonian Alexander the Great. Unfortunately, this provides us few clues about the origins of the two ideas, because Buddhism originated in 6th century B.C., whereas Alexander’s conquest was 3rd century. Perhaps Eastern philosophers came to Greece and shared their ideas with the pre-Socratics, although this seems to me a laughable concept. I am forced to conclude that as similar as the two strains of thought seem to me, they have no historical link.
Now that we have skimmed the surface of what these two philosophies entail, I wish to examine and discuss whether the ideas found in both worldviews are practical for everyday life. Does eliminating one’s desires truly bring happiness? Is there some sort of virtue to be had in synthesizing every two extreme opposites that one comes across? I would argue that the problem with Stoic/Buddhist philosophy is its main tenet. It assumes that, first of all, man can have control over his desires. Whether or not this is true, I think that it is contradictory to say that man is not governed by desire. For example, if a man picks up a pencil and writes his name, it is because he desired to do so. This is simply based on the definition of desire: “To wish or long for, want.” (Free Online Dictionary). Any other reason given comes back to desire as its basis. Even some actions which we claim to have desired not to do, as long as we had choice in the matter, we acted on our desires. If somebody steals something, and then regrets it, it is not because they acted against their desires, but they acted upon a desire stronger than that which caused them to regret their action. Therefore, would not suppressing one’s desires only be possible through desire? That is to say that one desires to suppress desires. Without desire, which, according to Buddhism/Stoicism is wrong, choosing one philosophy over another is impossible. Therefore, I would argue that on this simple logical problem alone, the Buddhist and Stoic belief systems must be unusable.
Another problem with the idea of suppressing desire is that when compared to other philosophies, it leads to a dull worldview of vague equilibrium. I like the adage, “It is better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all.” I agree with it in most cases, at least as far as it applies to the experience of life. Surely one can be a perfect person if he sits in a dark room alone for his entire life, doing nothing but sipping cool tea and thinking about the universe. But is this the best life? No matter what worldview background one subscribes to, it is obvious that our world is a world of emotion, action, color, change, and other cosmological seasonings and spices that make life worth living. So the logical conclusion of Stoicism and Buddhism, suppression of all desires, is in the end a bland existence that would be better categorized under the worldviews of hopelessness than those of teleological import.
