(no subject)
Nov. 11th, 2010 08:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsI was talking to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
pegasusfallen today, and we were discussing the difference between Stephen Batchelor's Buddhism Without Beliefs and William Irvine's A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy, and as we were talking, the sentence came out of my mouth, out of nowhere: " The basic difference is that Stoicism enforces compassionate detachment through conscious effort, whereas Buddhism cultivates it as a side-effect of routine meditation."
It was a strong insight, so let me explain.
One of the major goals of Stoicism is that the Stoic achieve a sense of tranquility and joy by learning to appreciate what he has, and learning to understand what he can control. We are to appreciate the great gifts we have, and are to cultivate ourselves: if wealth and fame come as a result of that cultivation, we are not to become attached to it. Permanence is not a part of the Stoic's world: it could all be lost in a moment.
The same is true of Buddhism. The Buddhist is seeking to be mindful of the current world, but appreciative of its transcience: it could all be taken away in an instant. The Buddhist approach has been to meditate on this impermanence and the pain we suffer as a result of it, and to contemplate how irrelevant both impermanence and our relative pain are in the great wheel of the universe, and by doing so, free ourselves from suffering.
Both arrive at the same place: we are to be compassionate towards those less fortunate than ourselves, but to be detached from all suffering-- our own, and those of others. To be useful to our fellow man without immediate emotions affecting our effectiveness.
Stoicism gets you there by conscious effort: regular, habitual practice of negative visualization: brief mental plays reminding us that it can all be taken away, and rehearsals for what we will do and how we will react when that happens. By doing so, the Stoic says, we dull the effect of grief's blade, and make of ourselves an effective responder when others would be shocked or grieving.
Buddhism, in contrast, gets you there as a side effect of meditation: the act of meditation, any meditation, seems to cause physical brain changes that lead to both detachment and a sense of compassion. The effect is reasonably well-researched, and can be seen in as little as three weeks of five-minutes-a-day meditation.
From a secular point of view, both forms of meditation have value: the conscious, "before the journal" kind that Stocism encourages, and the quiet, introspective kind that Buddhism engenders. More to the point, Stoicism emphasises social contact, especially with those who share our values and especially those who live in accordance with those values. Buddhism has only started to plumb kalyaa na mitrataa, the importance of having and maintaing deep and serious friendships with those who live in accordance with righteous duty.
Stoicism is distinctly Western: our minds must be engaged in the task of making us better human beings. Buddhism is distinctly Eastern: the constant chatter of our minds must be quieted in order for us to become better human beings. Both are headed in the same direction, and both, ultimately, are seeking the same goal.
pegasusfallen today, and we were discussing the difference between Stephen Batchelor's Buddhism Without Beliefs and William Irvine's A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy, and as we were talking, the sentence came out of my mouth, out of nowhere: " The basic difference is that Stoicism enforces compassionate detachment through conscious effort, whereas Buddhism cultivates it as a side-effect of routine meditation."It was a strong insight, so let me explain.
One of the major goals of Stoicism is that the Stoic achieve a sense of tranquility and joy by learning to appreciate what he has, and learning to understand what he can control. We are to appreciate the great gifts we have, and are to cultivate ourselves: if wealth and fame come as a result of that cultivation, we are not to become attached to it. Permanence is not a part of the Stoic's world: it could all be lost in a moment.
The same is true of Buddhism. The Buddhist is seeking to be mindful of the current world, but appreciative of its transcience: it could all be taken away in an instant. The Buddhist approach has been to meditate on this impermanence and the pain we suffer as a result of it, and to contemplate how irrelevant both impermanence and our relative pain are in the great wheel of the universe, and by doing so, free ourselves from suffering.
Both arrive at the same place: we are to be compassionate towards those less fortunate than ourselves, but to be detached from all suffering-- our own, and those of others. To be useful to our fellow man without immediate emotions affecting our effectiveness.
Stoicism gets you there by conscious effort: regular, habitual practice of negative visualization: brief mental plays reminding us that it can all be taken away, and rehearsals for what we will do and how we will react when that happens. By doing so, the Stoic says, we dull the effect of grief's blade, and make of ourselves an effective responder when others would be shocked or grieving.
Buddhism, in contrast, gets you there as a side effect of meditation: the act of meditation, any meditation, seems to cause physical brain changes that lead to both detachment and a sense of compassion. The effect is reasonably well-researched, and can be seen in as little as three weeks of five-minutes-a-day meditation.
From a secular point of view, both forms of meditation have value: the conscious, "before the journal" kind that Stocism encourages, and the quiet, introspective kind that Buddhism engenders. More to the point, Stoicism emphasises social contact, especially with those who share our values and especially those who live in accordance with those values. Buddhism has only started to plumb kalyaa na mitrataa, the importance of having and maintaing deep and serious friendships with those who live in accordance with righteous duty.
Stoicism is distinctly Western: our minds must be engaged in the task of making us better human beings. Buddhism is distinctly Eastern: the constant chatter of our minds must be quieted in order for us to become better human beings. Both are headed in the same direction, and both, ultimately, are seeking the same goal.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-11-12 06:02 am (UTC)Did you read Irvine's essays at BoingBoing (http://boingboing.net/2010/11/01/twenty-first-century-4.html) on stoicism and Zen?Yes you did. Pardon my carelessness there.no subject
Date: 2010-11-12 07:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-12 06:34 pm (UTC)