Stoicism and Buddhism

We don't know
Or how much did Buddhism influence Hellenic thought?

We know there was lots of contact and spread of ideas.
A number of modern Buddhist ideas only really developed after Alexander

buddhism predates stoicism and as I've said, stoic and epicurea terms like "ataraxia" came from the east.

That doesn't necessarily mean the influence came from buddhism though

Thinking about it, Foucault may be the closest to it

Roman sources spoke of buddhists within the empire and mentioned the Buddha by name
There have also been found Buddhist graves in Roman Egypt and Greece

In the east there are mentions of Greek legends, and a massive artistic shift after the conquest

...

Nietzsche

So, can you dudes answer my questions?

This isn't your thread anymore bud

b-b-but why?

any good books/sources on this?

Not even in the slightest
Nietzsche would be a Buddhist if he knew more about it at the time

he did admire it more, but did misunderstand some of its very fundamental parts.

I really doubt he would have been one though.

This thread mentions several
history.stackexchange.com/questions/20889/buddhists-in-ancient-alexandria-and-rome

Even Greek Buddhist missionaries visiting India

Maybe not become one but definitely appreciated it.
The warrior he describes is very similar to the warrior traditions within Buddhist nations

The biggest contradiction is that Nietzsche was vehemently opposed to the proposition that the aim of life should be the end of suffering. Their ontologies are in synch otherwise however

Nietzsche was familiar enough with Buddhism through Schopenhauer

ta m8

feminists

Buddhism doesn't say that suffering should be avoided but rather that it is an important tool to help you attain enlightenment by overcoming it
Which is what Nietzsche thought as well

Honestly before the 1960s western knowledge of Buddhism was fairly limited and mostly second hand

>Which is what Nietzsche thought as well

Literally no it isn't. Whether its total reduction or an arbitrary "moderate reduction" the very fact of a libidinal imposition in the noble truths is already fundamentally oppositional to Nietzsches framework

No

Nietzsche was mostly interested in what would be next after overcoming it, though. Buddhism treats the overcoming of suffering as the goal, but for Nietzsche it is just another step towards advancing yourself and human progress.

there are similarities between buddhism and stoicisim but there are generally lots of similarities between buddhism and the three main hellenistic schools that came after aristotle. for example, there is a lot of scholarly work (like the book 'Greek Buddha') exploring similarities between buddhism and pyrrhonian skepticism, and there are also clear similarities between epicurean views on atomism and its implications, on the one hand, and the views of various buddhist schools on composite objects

Buddists can't speak Greek idiot, how would they communicate?

you might find this book revealing:

cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/philosophy/nineteenth-century-philosophy/nietzsche-and-buddhist-philosophy?format=HB&isbn=9781107031623

Kierkegaard

But for the Buddhist overcoming suffering is not the end (unless you chose to end it there and float aimlessly in between being and non-being)

I think the main difference is Nietzsche disdains what he sees as "pity" and seeks individual attainment while the Buddhist feels individual attainment is impossible so long as suffering continues around you and therefore it is the duty of the enlightened to help overcome suffering beyond themselves as bodhisattvas

Basically the difference between the Buddha who retreats into nirvana in order to reach higher heights of enlightenment vs the Buddha who returns to samsara and the karmic cycle is one turns the wheel on its side highlighting the individual and One while the other keeps it flat highlighting the spokes and ever turning nature

I've been really drawn towards Buddhist philosophy (not so much stoicism) since college and the ideology of it all has definitely made life so much simpler, better, more meaningful.

I've also found that I absolutely fucking hate talking about philosophy now because the academics have their heads so far up their own ass with convoluted bullshit that they mistake for complex wisdoms. The beauty of Buddhism to me has always been the simple answers it provides.

Somewhere along the line people start confusing philosophy with politics or science, and boy are they fucking wet blankets

What the fuck are you on about, please go back to /x/

>philosophy is like too hard dude, just nerds overthinking lol
>I like Buddhism because I can pretend I know everything and I don't have to think much

You sound like a highschooler, consider suicide

You really missed the point friend. There's nothing difficult about understanding complex philosophies, but being long winded and edgy doesn't make you sound smart, it just makes you come off like an asshole.

Or you could pursue a philosophy that focuses on being a generous person and not overanalyzing things that have no deeper meaning.

You let us know how the asshole thing works out.

>>Pretending to know everything.
>>Actually thinking you know everything.

Which one do you think is worse user?

>Nietzsche was familiar enough with Buddhism through Schopenhauer

which is why his conception of Buddhism was facile - Schopenhauer's was. You can't really evaluate Buddhist teachings just by reading the texts, the teachings something you have to *do*. For example re: the Jhanas, what the hell is anyone supposed to say about the Jhanas who has not put in hundreds of hours of meditation practice in order to experience them? "Jhana" is not an abstract concept open to dialogue or disputation the way the Western tradition likes.

Buddhism is not a philosophical system (system of thought) the way that Stoicism and other western philosophical movements are. It's something more like a set of instruction manuals for re-engineering your mental states.

In the Pali Canon the Buddha comes out hard against even engaging in what we would call philosophical discussion or speculation at all, e.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow

You could say that the teachings or Dharma are philosophical in certain ways, and sure, but its all in the context of *intense* meditation practice which has nothing to do with philosophy.

>generous person

Literally a meaningless spook. The point of complex philosophy is become some people have a commitment towards being rationally accountable for their notions and not just believing in arbitrary bullshit like this because it sounds nice

Again suicide

>the teachings something you have to *do*.

Lmao kindly fuck off

>Lmao kindly fuck off

you aren't even trying

I don't need to try in the face of such horseshit. Its a joke that someone on a board interested in literature takes on pure faith alone that you'll necessarily come to some prescribed set of notions from nothing but ritualized ideological reinforcement.
Buddhism attracts the worst kind of pseuds who pretend they have intellectual credibility then shirk back in esoteric mysticism the moment you need to justify your propositions

>takes on pure faith alone
no
>prescribed set of notions
no
>ritualized ideological reinforcement
nope

>esoteric mysticism
eh

I'll put it to you this way. If you haven't been to the grand canyon, and if you don't have access to any pictures of it (or even any pictures of any canyons), there's no amount of circuitous explaining I can do that can give you an authentic portrait of what being at the grand canyon is like. You just have to go there. You can claim that you understand by reading or hearing about the Grand Canyon, but you don't. But my saying so is not "esoteric mysticism" or obscurantism or snake oil or whatever; its totally ordinary. Just go to the Canyon and experience it like you would anything else. Or if you don't like that example, substitute in sex or psychedelic drugs or something else that alters your mental state in a substantial way. There are plenty of things in this world that you can't really know anything about until you do them: meditation is one of them. Why is that so hard to believe? Did you understand what being drunk was like before you had your first drink?

lel

>speaks of spooks
>proceeds to defend philosophy and encourages suicide

(OP)
>seem to be very similar
They agree on the four elements. Stoics claiming that the goal is to live according to Nature will remind you of Buddhists following the Dharma (the word Buddhism is a Western invention). Both philosophies tell desire to fuck off. Interest in both philosophies is growing in the West.
>where do they differ?
Ishvara: Stoics believe in an Ishvara called either God, Zeus or Nature which is coincident with the material universe (pantheism), Theravada Buddhists reject the Ishvara, Buddhist views on matter and phenomena exclude pantheism - if you're thinking of immanent views in Mahayana, where the Buddha is everywhere, I'll remind you of the Heart Sutra: the Dharmas, the laws of this universe are, in fact, empty. The Stoic thinks God is before him because God is the sensible universe, no enlightenment or skepsis is required to discover this, you just need reason and some consensus (see epistemology below).
Free will: Stoics are uncompromising determinists, Theravada Buddhists point out that the Devadahasutta teaches that the present experience of pleasure and pain is a combined result of both past and present actions, it's a weak compatibilism that I believe is stronger in Mahayana.
Afterlife: Stoics believe the soul to be extinguished first and then transforming into the matter-logos spermatikos of the universe (because they're pantheists), Buddhists believe in a cycle of death and rebirth first with extinction at the final goal (which excludes pantheism, your psyche can GTFO the universe).
Epistemology: while Stoics begin with sense information, which leave an impression upon the psyche, reason is the final ultimate judge of these representations of reality, episteme can be achieved with consensus between people. The Buddha of the sabbasutta is an empiricist, all that can be known comes from the 6 senses. Early Buddhism is said to be pragmatist and to teach a correspondence theory, later Buddhists develop a Two Truths doctrine with a provisional pragmatism in daily life and skepsis as the final truth. Chan Buddhism and Western "Buddhism" are often skeptic and tell the phenomena to go fuck themselves.
Ethics: Stoics see the solution to sexual behavior as to simply practice temperance and never over-indulge, they see no merit in saving animals, and have no next life to look for. They want apatheia, peace of mind, here and now, not collecting afterlife points until you can blow out this candle.

Don't ask for book recommendations because I'm ESL.

>There are plenty of things in this world that you can't really know anything about until you do them

I dont think that's true whatsoever and I see no justification for presuming so. The human imagination is perfectly capable of picturing what a fucking canyon looks like.
What you're speaking of in your misconstrued logic is the ability to come to certainty in predicting a specific experience. Which is entirely irrelevant when dealing with abstract matters which are by definition transcendental.
In these matters there is absolutely nothing in experience that is relevant outside the very existence of experience itself.

Oh, I forgot an immensely important difference:

Stoics believe your soul begins as a tabula rasa, Buddhist doctrines of previous lives and karma make this impossible.

They're very similar because this is how people approach life in the context of a late civilizational phase.

Neither philosophy or suicide are spooks you fucking troglodyte
Philosophy especially is a fundamental pre-requisite for becoming unspooked
Git gud

The bottom line is that Stoicism is a philosophy and Buddhism is a religion, the moment you completely make a secular, humanist, if not naturalized, protestant Buddhism that looks only at the Pali Canon and ignores the Mahayana and Vajrayana scriptures, many of the differences disappear.

But then this neo-Buddhism, or non-Buddhism as some call it, will lose many of the distinguishing features that make it an attractive mystical set of doctrines to the Westerner.

Whats a spook

Its when your mind gets cucked

How does a mind get cucked?

How does a stoic learn to resist the desire to have a daughter after watching Logan? Srs please help

talking about jhanas without experiencing them is like talking about trips without taking acid

you'll sound like a major faggot who doesn't know a damn thing

anyone i've known that has read books on either tend to be detached from reality.
the ability to stay composed isn't that complicated of an idea and something you gain by practice, reading about it only makes you some weird detached neurotic.
save reading for interesting/informative shit.

t. shallow stemfag

Go build a rocket or something.

i'm a bartender.
maybe stop being a little bitch and try being in the real world then you won't have to read a book on how to be in it.

A CUTE

Yes normie hedonists cannot stand that what they experience through the 5 senses and their little ideas are worthless compared to the jhanas.

>i'm just a bartender
>y-yea i know it's pathetic, b-but.. IM IN THE REAL WORLD!!!

holy fucking shitballs, friend. you win!

you're a detached weirdo and you think you're better for it.
it's funny when western buddhists talk about staying calm when they really just learn detachment techniques because they can't handle reality.
being a bartender is fucking great but nice projection.
this is what i'm talking about. i have nothing against buddhists who grew up that way but the entire lot of western buddhists are largely made up of autistic eunuchs who need some religious element to live by. have fun never getting laid then moving to SEA and fucking tranny hookers with other losers when you realize how much of a retard you were.

>being this MAD

>being a bartender is fucking great
sure is, friendo.
>the entire lot of western buddhists are autistic
if you really believe that, I feel obligued to point out the irony of the fact that you called me a
>retard
also:
>have fun never getting laid
wow. you went full neanderthal there. getting your dick wet on a regular basis to forget the fact that you're an idiot?
At first I was having fun trolling you, but now I feel bad for you, mate. I feel genuine pity for you. Have fun bartending and fucking!

It means you're a turbosperg getting into philosophy for all the wrong reasons. And you probably smell too

you sound butthurt maybe step up on your meditation game bud

I can see where teaching of Equanimity might apply to Stoicisim.

Don't know much about stoicism that sticking to what you can control (your mind) which Buddhism also claims to teach you but with an actual pragmatic framework.

THERE'S A FLY IN MY DRINK

is that your mantra?

My diary desu

read his later works, Foucault ended with the Stoics

Nietzsche, Kirke, existentialists

this guy gets it.

...

You sound like the sperg user. Getting your jimmies all rustled because someone stepped on your high brow philosophy which you probably wasted your major on.

Poor fool.

Not the same guy autist

But you are a different guy autist. Autist.

There's no need to argue about these things. Philosophy as a personal morals should serve individual well being and prosperity and may or may not include others. It's completely dependent on the individual. If you are overwhelmed, overworked, anxious, stressed the fuck out, start with the stoics, if you also have a strong emotional need for compassion do the buddhists. When you're a beta permavirgin NEET, never neglect the Nietzsche. And so on and so on *sniff* find like minded people if you wish but first of all sort yourself out (bucko) and heal yourself. t. dirty sophist

buddhists belive in gohsts

stoicis are too rationaal for this.

>When you're a beta permavirgin NEET, never neglect the Nietzsche
*tips fedora*

No they don't have to. I mean the Buddha did but he also spoke to devas. Belief in ghosts is extraneous and not required for liberation.

I lived in Asia for a while and the first thing you notice about Buddhism is that it's very irrational, a lot more than christianity. You have belief in the supernatural, lots of requests and praying to gods, heaven and hell, ghosts, dragons, lucky charms, etc.
Because of that, I can't learn anything from my buddhist gf, everything is drowned in bullshit.

So, what kind of Buddhism, are you talking about? Westerners-ready Buddhism ?

I think you're wilfully going a bit too far in your refutation of this

Buddhism in Asia is largely ritualistic and theocratic, largely against the Buddha's ideals. People don't even meditate. Most of them only give alms to monks in hopes that that is enough to gain karmic merit.

Usually it's not enough , one has to live by the Precepts and have a concentration practice.

This; make sure you actually sit down and read the sutras though (Diamond is best to start, then Lanka for a big systematic awesome one) usually intro classes give you only summaries or other peoples' commentary.

I really like the way Heidegger subtly brings existentialism (a rare practical modern philosophy) and Buddhist concepts of being together in a way that still keeps them practical, so I found and joined a fb group, thinking it would be full of interesting practical advice or interpretations of his principal works. Instead, it was just /b/-tier shit posting masked in academic jargon.

I was invited to some Rinpoche cult meeting while there and it was the same shit.

I learned that smoking weed obstructs an area of the cranium and it prevents your soul from leaving your body properly when you die (alcohol is totally fine though).
It's also possible to see dragons (which are all around us) with the right training.
The leader shat on people like Alan Watts for corrupting real Buddhism.

The friend who invited me is completely submitted to the cult, she has to work for free for them and do mindless exercices like doing prostrations for one hour.

Westernized Buddhism is interesting because it makes most of the bullshit disappear, but does similar things really exists in Asia?

Yes. Well I like the Theravada school so it's pretty grounded in what the Buddha actually taught. In particular, Forest Thai cuts out the mystical nonsense. Pure Land and Tibetan can be seen as cultish but I have no beef with them as we are both ultimately dependent on The Eightfold Path. They tend to have Buddha's like Maitreya and others whereas Theravada only studies Gautma Siddhartha. Again, there is no beef because we are both for the cessation of suffering and liberation , they tend to add a lot of extraneous commentary. But I learned something from them too, in particular LamRim meditation and such tantric techniques.

buddhism is just fucking detachment techniques. just as christianity is just a fucking guilt trip cult just as islam is non-racial fascism.

Rand

> buddhism is just fucking detachment techniques.

What makes you say this?

because it is?
there's probably more socio-cultural aspects in the east but the west doesn't give a fuck about that they just want the techniques to help them detach under the guise of spiritual enrichment. it's a commodity, a drug in the west, nothing more. you can't be a real buddhist unless you plan to live in a monastery.

spooks are a spook, you cock munching faggot.

>Forest Thai cuts out the mystical nonsense
That's because the Forest Thai is inspired by Christian modernism which was imported and very influence in Thailand around the same time it was founded.

>largely against the Buddha's ideals
>what the Buddha actually taught
You need to actually read the Pali canon if you think Buddhism wasn't full of mystical nonsense, the buddha condemned actors to hell and instructed multiple Kings and warmongers without condemning either.

>angry autistic barman keeps doling out edgy wisdom

>I learned that smoking weed obstructs an area of the cranium and it prevents your soul from leaving your body properly when you die (alcohol is totally fine though).

That's consistent with what the Buddha taught, or are you forgetting that Buddhism originally started off as a straight edge Hindu sect?

He also permitted grape wine which is often assuming to mean low alcohol percentage beverages.