Stoicism vs Buddhism

>One person whose business it is, supplies me with food; another with raiment; another with perceptions, and preconceptions. And if he does not supply what is necessary, He gives the signal for retreat, opens the door, and says to you, 'Go.' Go whither? To nothing terrible, but to the place from which you came, to your friends and kinsmen, to the elements: what there was in you of fire goes to fire; of earth, to earth; of air, to air; of water to water: no Hades, nor Acheron, nor Cocytus, nor Pyriphlegethon, but all is full of Gods and Demons." When a man has such things to think on, and sees the sun, the moon and stars, and enjoys earth and sea, he is not solitary nor even helpless. "Well then, if some man should come upon me when I am alone and murder me?" Fool, not murder you, but your poor body.

classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.3.three.html

Primo

>Reincarnation and transmigration of the soul was a normalized part of almost all greek traditions.

What's this based on?

Stoicism was built in Greek religion as much as Buddhism is on Hinduism.

I read Aurelius' Meditations, and I remember him saying the souls return to the logos after death. It didn't seem like he believed in any kind of reincarnation or afterlife.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneuma_(Stoic)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return#Classical_antiquity

Also, pre-Socratic thought has huge influence from Indian thought(Shape of Ancient Thoughts). Reincarnation was baked into most of the pre-Socratic thought onward. It was only once Christianity started getting popular that the concept of reincarnation was wiped from the western religious/philosophical psyche.

Good shares. I always thought Greeks were against it because Hesiod describes the underworld and Olympus as being found on Gaia, and I interpreted that to me that they were worldly places one would ascend/descend to materially. Of course there were contrary viewpoints found in things like the Orphic mysteries, but I just figured the majority of Greeks wouldn't have bothered with an afterlife beyond the world.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return#Classical_antiquity

Not re-incarnation. Just cycles of the universe going on forever. You don't get to experience jack shit after death.

Rebirth, Eternal re-occurence, reincarnation.

Same baseline shit about recycling. Infact the stoics version is bit closer to the Buddhist rebirth concept as as stated, "you" don't get to experience jack shit after death.

Still these are all variants on the same concept.

>Still these are all variants on the same concept.

It's well known that Stoicism as a philosophy had profound influence on the early Church.

no it didn't

Yes it did.

STOICISM HAS MARCUS AURELIUS
BUDDHISM HAS HITLER (SWASTIKAS N SHIET)

which one helps you more with stress of modern life

for a westerner, stoicism. unless you immerse yourself in hippy yoga culture.

yeah thats the problem
stoicism feels like something that i practised unknowingly for some time now, at least parts of it now that im learning about it

but buddhism feels a bit too alien to me

Buddhim has a few thousand years of supersittion and baggage attached to it. A stripped down and demystified buddhism might work and be more palatable.

Stoic text is also much more straight forward than Buddhist texts, which are typical confusing religious mumbo jubmo.

Buddhism has more comprehensive depth but as says, its got bit of "baggage" with it. You can ignore most of the outright superstitous elements and it won't make any difference. The key components of Buddhism that "could be" classified as superstitious as "rebirth"("reincarnation") and "karma". Note "could be" not "is". It all depends on how you look at it, understand these concepts. Some like to think of them as something mystical and woo-y but you can easily understand it in naturalized forms.

But imo, start with stoics and then move to Buddhism. Stoictism is basically buddhism-lite with some key elements ignored/removed. If you feel like its lacking something, then move to Buddhism.

the virgin stoic wants to be impassible like the zen virgin and ''accepts nature'', accepts reality as it is, and people as they are, without expectations '' and ''everything experienced is nice''....

for the dharmic Chad, he acknowledges that ''reality'' is shit and he gets disgusted, and once the disgust is the highest, he stops caring about ''reality''

...

Stoicism founder was a Semite

>born in the Hellenic world
>working off of Hellenic philosophy
>MAYBE of Phoenician descent
>all the dudes he worked off of, and those that followed him were Greco-Roman
Eh, it's Aryan enough for me

god damn that picture of fucking uncanny

>a Jewish cult offshoot comes out of Judea
>arrive in the Hellenistic world
>of course they take from it, because Greek Philosophy is badass
>shamelessly use it's foundations to build your own
>still declare it heresy and shut down the schools anyway
>Platonism killed in the West unless it pays heavy tribute to Christianity
>so much so it's more of an academic interest than it is a lifestyle in it's ow right

Original Hellenic Stoicism differs from the later Roman style, which is better documented. Hellenic Stoicism was more cynical, such as in their views on sex. Zeno in his Republic, advocated free love, and lax sexual rules. In contrast, Roman stoics are sexually conservative. Epictetus could pass for a Roman Catholic.

...

He looks so stoned in that statue.

Get it?

Stoned?

...

>he stops caring about ''reality''
He should instanlty become an hero then, otherwise he's nothing but a poser.

...

Stop being attached to externals.

This always seemed like an excuse to admonish many forms of art or fiction while at the same time excluding the stuff that you personally like as being "different" because you like it so it doesn't count.

It is hard to say too much about what the Hellenic Stoics believed because the only thing we have about them are second hand accounts, usually by non-Stoics. If second hand accounts were the only thing we had about the Epicureans, we would probably think they were #YOLO idiots and perverts.

I'm giving you all a good source for the Pali Canon (Theravada Buddhism) here in case anyone is interested in studying it any time soon. It's one of the best places to learn about it and I'd advise you to take your time and look it up if you really want to learn more.

accesstoinsight.org/

Many people in the West tend to associate Buddhism with "hippies" and "New Agers" which is a grave error. Buddhists that practice the precepts and study the discourses of whatever canon tend to be really really conservative and sometimes as uptight about morality as other religions religions that are considered to be "oppressive" to the individual like Islam. Consider the following:

-No alcohol
-No drugs
-No illicit sexual acts (ie: adultery and others)
-Discourages careers in acting.
-Prohibits career as a soldier.

And that's just a few of common norms lay people tends to follow. For more on "Right Livelihood" and "Right Action" you may check:

accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ajivo/index.html
accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-kammanto/index.html

I hope I was helpful!

Reminder that puthujannas claim that if you cannot have the vipassanas, then you do samadhi and if you cannot do samadhi, you do ''morality''.
''Morality'' does not exist alone and being good at ''morality'' is done through being good at the other two.

just be yourself

what experience do you call logos?