How is buddhism different from stoicism? Both seem really similar

How is buddhism different from stoicism? Both seem really similar

Buddhism seeks nirvana; which is the absence of karma, karma being sanskrit for effect or action.

Buddhism also has an entire pantheon of gods and different realms of heavens/hells and hierarchies of reincarnation, lots of mysticism. There’s more things different between buddhism and stoicism than there are things similar

OP probably means “does it produce people with similar mindset?” because obvious the religious aspects are different, but you could say there are similarities in how Buddhists and stoops approach life. They’re both cool with been leaves in the breeze: accepting what life gives you and facing it with your emotions in check.

Nirvana and apathia are Almost the Same desu

Nice body, no homo.

There are sects of buddhism that do away with karma

Buddhism is about watching the wheels of your mind turn in real time, from which a sort of invincibility through emotional distance arises that is also the ideal result of stoicism.

No, they really are not.

There is something incredibly autistic about people getting off on fake pictures.

>Buddhism
Seeks nirvana; absence of suffering; does that with 8 fold path; this is wisdom/reasoning, virtues/ethics, and mental fortitude

>Stoicism
Seeks apatheia; control over emotions; through virtuous acts/reasoning you gain ataraxia; absence of suffering


Very different

name one

buddhism is from india, so it reeks of poo.
Stoicism is from greece, so it can't afford soap.
both smell, but for different reasons.

Why not?

>Buddhism seeks nirvana; which is the absence of karma, karma being sanskrit for effect or action.
This shit is so fucking stupid I can never take them seriously. Its like nihilism but somehow more intolerably smug. The whole core of existence over not existing in the first place is that we have an effect and a will, if only temporal. Just poison the fucking punch already and actually leave and not have the effect of wearing my patience, you non-being hipsters.

>intolerably smug and obnoxiously edgy hipster projects onto others

>Both seem really similar
They really are.
I get the feeling they attract the same type of people.
I think all the differences are just cultural and regional.

>no argument other than "I know you are what but am I?"

Your smugness and your inability to take Buddhism seriously is because your understanding of Buddhism is flawed.

Buddhism has never been about "existence" and "non-existence".

>what do you mean by that?
Read a basic 5 minute Buddhist introduction. Or wiki or something thats mildly credible.

That is very much possible given the contact Greeks and Indians had. Even direct first hand contact by Greek philosophers in India during Alexander's conquest and the subsequent Greeco-Buddhist community in Bactria.

There's something incredibly autistic about your comment

Stoicism states that your societal role is extremely important and you should do your best fulfilling it. It puts a big emphasis on being a good citizen and serving your community or state. In that sense it is more similar to Hinduism or Confucianism than Buddhism.

Buddhism is more individualistic, it doesn't really care about social roles (it regards basically everything wordly as an obstacle for spiritual advancement) and even praises people leaving society and becoming monks or hermits.

Their ethics are pretty similar though, then again, Judaism and Christianity has mostly the same ethics too.

Classical stoicism also had gods, but everything was ultimately subservient to Natural Law, which was the ultimate divine principle. Modern stoicism is a secularised version.

This, there are some similar concepts but respective goals are totally different.

The ethics, problem and goals, even parts of the methods are very similar.

>stoicismhas
been a philosophy for bureaucrats. it says: how can i live a boring life, stay in my job without getting crazy or bored and without suffering from moral doubt about the things i enable for the state

>buddhism
concernd with the ending of ALL suffering for ALL beings. Alsovery individualistic. exepation: tibetan buddhism, which was a form of state organization

This pretty much
>when your actual autism cripples you from having any abstract reasoning ability and only allows you to focus on and compare irrelevant details

You have at least three huge different sects of buddhism and two different strands of stoicism (one comes from the slaves, the other from bureaucrats and general elite)

Comparing buddhism and stoicism with each other without considering their internal division is futile

sorry, life is complicated

>irrelevant details
ending all suffering for all beings vs i don't care about suffering

Yes they are, you're an autist

t. brianlet

>two different strands of stoicism (one comes from the slaves, the other from bureaucrats and general elite)
What in the fuck.

the slaves, such as Epictetus, were concerned with philosophy as something that brings freedom from the external events. the elite, or nobles, were concerned with the question of how to enjoy boredom.

Epictetus, the former slave, was the master of Arrian (a very powerful politician) and Hadrian (Emperor). Marcus Aurelius (Emperor) was a follower of Epictetus.
Epictetus' teacher was not a slave either.

Still a good bod.

Stoicism is just applied Busshism

Of course they're similar. So is christianity, its source neo-platonism, all the way up to even modern science. All are new incarnations of the same thing, perversions of ascetic ideals.

it's about finding inner peace, once your body gets to a certain level your happy to do shit cus you enjoy it. it not like a chore is skill and hard work, and you won't gain skill if no hard work is put in.

>modern science is worship of Christian God
>neo-platonism is worship of Christian God

kek