Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right, Here I am...

[elfs]

One of the big differences between Stoicism and Buddhism is about engagement with the world around you. Buddha taught that the world was full of suffering, and that every human being had a duty to understand the suffering, to let go of the source of the suffering, to realize the cessation of suffering, and to go forward. The four noble truths are usually written as a diagnosis, you know: "All is suffering," "suffering is caused by desire," etc, etc. I prefer them the way the Buddha intended: not merely a diagnosis of the problem, but a prescription for solving it. To achieve these ends, Buddha taught about disengagement, about "letting go" and so putting an impenetrable wall between yourself and the sources of suffering. One of those sources of suffering was, of course, selfhood, and even that was to be eventually extinguished in the quest for enlightenment.

The Stoics, on the other hand, held fewer mystical beliefs. All was suffering, they believed, and like the Buddha they argued that suffering came from desire. But desire itself wasn't wrong, and good men could desire justice, wisdom, courage, and temperance. The Stoic philosophy posits that we're here, and other men are here. We must engage with our world, for good and justice whenever possible. "We have come into the world to work together," Marcus Aurelius wrote, reminding himself privately. It's because of this that the Stoics, despite their temptations to chuck it all, stayed in the world and stayed involved: they saw a nebulous supernatural state, what the Buddhist would call nirvana, as a waste of what little time we had.

Comments

[herewiss13.livejournal.com]

I knew both those things, more or less, but it would never have occured to me to hold them up next to each other for comparison. Definite food for thought.

Buddhism Correctly Translated

[http://users.livejournal.com/_candide_/]

epinoid and I have been relistening to Pema Chödrön's lectures, and she brings up some of the misconceptions that people have about Buddhism. She gives some better translations of the old texts.

The gist of it goes something like this:

• Life is suffering.
• You will not reach Enlightenment after this lifetime. Or the next. Or the next. Neither will I. We have a long way to go.
• You won't reach Enlightenment unless you start working on yourself Here and Now. That starts with self-awareness.
• Most of the suffering in life is self-inflicted.
• When the old texts talk about, "giving up worldly attachments," that's a mistranslation. What they're really saying is, "Stop being so 'clingly' about ideas, wrongs, past experiences…."
• If you're in an unpleasant/uncomfortable situation, but you have some control over it, then pull yourself out of it. Don't cling to it by riling yourself up.
• A big part of self-awareness is, "Stop running on automatic." Try and catch yourself when you go into knee-jerk reactions. Then, try to catch yourself before reacting — and Don't Bite the Hook.

All in all a lot of the Buddhist teachings mesh very, very well with what any LSW or psychologist will tell you in therapy. It's all rather Basic Mental Hygiene.

Yes, there's a Spiritual component. Yes, there's a promise of a Better Hereafter. But you can't reach that by ignoring the here-and-now (unless you're already a Buddhist master who's one or two lifes from Enlightenment). The Spiritual promise of Buddhism starts with work you do in the world, which in turn starts with practicing what's really Basic Mental Hygiene.


(I still prefer Taoism. It's message is summed up thus: "Shit Happens. But if you Follow Our Teachings … Shit will Still Happen — however, you'll have a better chance of getting out of the way before it hits." No false promises, just an offer of tools for coping with things better. I like that.)