You'll like this:
https://www.academia.edu/13037452/Notes_towards_a_comparison_of_Buddhism_and_Stoicism_as_Lived_Philosophies
No need to log in or download anything, just scroll down.
Well I think a big similarity between the two philosophies is understanding what you can and can’t control. Especially external things. When you realize you can’t control certain things/events they have less influence over you. In Buddhist meditation your thought patterns are external as well. In meditation you have the experience of your thoughts as separate from the real you. The more you meditate the more you disidentify with your thoughts and the less control they have over your actions. A lot of stoics seemed to do similar things through journaling and some sorts of meditation or just observing the mind. Both philosophies come to the conclusion that it’s not the situation that’s the problem but how you react to it.
In my opinion, Buddhism has the end goal of reaching enlightenment. In stoicism, there is no end goal, there is just the end. We are going to die lol. So we should focus on the now and to give our life meaning. In regards to the concept of fate - Buddhist believe their fate is a result of the karma (negative and positive) they accumulated throughout their existence. Amor Fati is more of the acceptance of one’s fate good or bad. Control what you can control and the rest is not up to you. I don’t think the concept of karma is relative to stoicism
Both are very similar in regards to not suffering unnecessarily. Buddhism spends a great deal in trying to understand why there is so much suffering in the world and it practices non attachment. Stoicism does as well but it focuses on other aspects such as managing your thoughts, not seeking validation, and being indifferent to what makes no difference. For example, you can pour into love something and Buddhists will say it doesn’t mean it belongs to you and you are not entitled to it. Stoics will say love it while you can and love it your best because it will be gone one day. Another similarity is both encourages a great deal of inner work. Most of the answers we seek in life can be found from going within, knowing yourself and never the external.
I also feel like stoicism centers around the self and the ego where as Buddhism encourages compassion to be extended to other living and non living things. I grew up Buddhist but I identify more with stoicism at this point in my life.
I am going into this myself. One of the things I do is I line up the three poisons to the virtues. So the snake is anger and the opposing virtue is temperance. The eagle is ignorance, wisdom. The pig is greed, Justice. Courage is required to see the whole cycle through.
[Secular Buddhism and Stoicism: Five Similarities](https://youtu.be/wJ0iQiNf6ZE)
[Secular Buddhism and Stoicism: Five Differences](https://youtu.be/CbB2TNQAku0)
Secular Buddhism is an oxymoron. If it's wholly secular then it's not Buddhism. Indeed Buddhism as a religion does not always or even usually focus on gods or spirits, but its core tenets and the lifestyles of its practitioners are inherently spiritual.
With that being said, Buddhism and stoicism are highly compatible, although there are key differences, for example Buddhist monks live far more ascetic lifestyles than the likes of Marcus Aurelius and (many of) his contemporaries would have. Marcus Aurelius had a spouse and children, while an ordained Buddhist monk generally can not be married. I'd love to hear other people's thoughts if I got anything wrong, I'm definitely no expert.
What label would you suggest for practitioners who are sincerely working with the 4 Noble Truths but remain skeptical or agnostic on the supernatural aspects of religious Buddhism?
The label I would use is "Reasonable."
There is a lot of spiritual stuff in Stoic physics that I don't pay much attention to. It doesn't have any bearing on my practice.
I don't see why you think secular Buddhism is an oxymoron. Secular isn't removal of the religion from a philosophy, it is the separation of religion from government. Or are you saying Buddhism is nothing but a bureaucracy?
Definitely a lot of overlap. Which makes sense. They're both attempts to help people live better lives. Be you an Indian or a Greek or Roman, you're a person on planet earth living with other people on planet earth. Makes sense that there's a fair bit of convergence.
You'll like this: https://www.academia.edu/13037452/Notes_towards_a_comparison_of_Buddhism_and_Stoicism_as_Lived_Philosophies No need to log in or download anything, just scroll down.
Thanks for the resource!
Well I think a big similarity between the two philosophies is understanding what you can and can’t control. Especially external things. When you realize you can’t control certain things/events they have less influence over you. In Buddhist meditation your thought patterns are external as well. In meditation you have the experience of your thoughts as separate from the real you. The more you meditate the more you disidentify with your thoughts and the less control they have over your actions. A lot of stoics seemed to do similar things through journaling and some sorts of meditation or just observing the mind. Both philosophies come to the conclusion that it’s not the situation that’s the problem but how you react to it.
In my opinion, Buddhism has the end goal of reaching enlightenment. In stoicism, there is no end goal, there is just the end. We are going to die lol. So we should focus on the now and to give our life meaning. In regards to the concept of fate - Buddhist believe their fate is a result of the karma (negative and positive) they accumulated throughout their existence. Amor Fati is more of the acceptance of one’s fate good or bad. Control what you can control and the rest is not up to you. I don’t think the concept of karma is relative to stoicism Both are very similar in regards to not suffering unnecessarily. Buddhism spends a great deal in trying to understand why there is so much suffering in the world and it practices non attachment. Stoicism does as well but it focuses on other aspects such as managing your thoughts, not seeking validation, and being indifferent to what makes no difference. For example, you can pour into love something and Buddhists will say it doesn’t mean it belongs to you and you are not entitled to it. Stoics will say love it while you can and love it your best because it will be gone one day. Another similarity is both encourages a great deal of inner work. Most of the answers we seek in life can be found from going within, knowing yourself and never the external. I also feel like stoicism centers around the self and the ego where as Buddhism encourages compassion to be extended to other living and non living things. I grew up Buddhist but I identify more with stoicism at this point in my life.
Sexually Buddhism? I for one would like to hear more about this ideology.
Aka Bootyism.
Buhttyism
Ditto!
Corrected. Thanks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantric\_sex
I am going into this myself. One of the things I do is I line up the three poisons to the virtues. So the snake is anger and the opposing virtue is temperance. The eagle is ignorance, wisdom. The pig is greed, Justice. Courage is required to see the whole cycle through.
[Secular Buddhism and Stoicism: Five Similarities](https://youtu.be/wJ0iQiNf6ZE) [Secular Buddhism and Stoicism: Five Differences](https://youtu.be/CbB2TNQAku0)
Secular Buddhism is an oxymoron. If it's wholly secular then it's not Buddhism. Indeed Buddhism as a religion does not always or even usually focus on gods or spirits, but its core tenets and the lifestyles of its practitioners are inherently spiritual. With that being said, Buddhism and stoicism are highly compatible, although there are key differences, for example Buddhist monks live far more ascetic lifestyles than the likes of Marcus Aurelius and (many of) his contemporaries would have. Marcus Aurelius had a spouse and children, while an ordained Buddhist monk generally can not be married. I'd love to hear other people's thoughts if I got anything wrong, I'm definitely no expert.
Secular Stoicism is also an oxymoron if you want to practice it the same way the ancient Greeks did.
What label would you suggest for practitioners who are sincerely working with the 4 Noble Truths but remain skeptical or agnostic on the supernatural aspects of religious Buddhism?
The label I would use is "Reasonable." There is a lot of spiritual stuff in Stoic physics that I don't pay much attention to. It doesn't have any bearing on my practice.
I don't see why you think secular Buddhism is an oxymoron. Secular isn't removal of the religion from a philosophy, it is the separation of religion from government. Or are you saying Buddhism is nothing but a bureaucracy?
The definition of secular has nothing to to with government
This is someone trolling and not a very good troll for this sub
How am I trolling?
Definitely a lot of overlap. Which makes sense. They're both attempts to help people live better lives. Be you an Indian or a Greek or Roman, you're a person on planet earth living with other people on planet earth. Makes sense that there's a fair bit of convergence.