1. Trying to achieve equanimity under all circumstances 2. Trying to conquer greed, desire, hatred, anger, ingnorance 3. Focus on practice 4. Focus on ethics (kindness towards yourself and others) 5. Pragmatic philosophies
Thank you for being engaging and getting my mind to move. To wit, I've thought of two more similarities. For the first, there are two intertwined elements, and I can't think of a word that combines the two. If you can think of one let me know. 1. Both Buddhism and Stoicism seek to alleviate the suffering of others, the best example being Seneca's letters. What follows along with this is that both are evangelical. Buddhism had its missionaries, and Stoicism had the Stoa. Not in the Christian sense of evangelism, of course, no threats of hell or demands of repentance. The Buddha went from town to town so that those who were interested could ask him questions or talk to his disciples. 2. Both seem to believe in a kind of Natural Law. In the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha says, "Wouldn't what I've just taught be upheld by the wise?" He doesn't say, "Isn't this what God wants from us?" He cites "the wise," and I think it's quite telling. In Buddhism, the dharma simply is, and I'm pretty sure there's no talk of where it came from. Switching to Stoicism, there are no 10 Commandments. Epictetus may reference God, but he doesn't *really* have any authority to cite other than tried and true practice, whatever works. The Stoics in general seem to believe that there is an underlying structure and pattern to the universe, i.e. Natural Law. In the Greco-Roman world this is called Logos, and in Buddhism it is called Dharma.
thank you for this. I saw it at the perfect time. I just started the Stoic Path meditation series led by William B. Irvine on Sam Harris' Waking Up app. He speaks at some length on how well the two systems compliment each other. "Like having a nice, strong cup of coffee AND a piece of Swiss chocolate to nibble on" or something to that effect.
Thank you. You did name 6 similarities. When speaking to both being practice oriented you said both highly regarded wisdom/logos. Glad you footnotes it 👍
Hi Doug. It is nice to see you bringing other aspects/philosophies into your videos. Especially where there are so many similarities. I have noticed from other people with the Secular Buddhist realms an almost aggressive defensive towards Secular Buddhism. An attitude that I must say has taken me aback somewhat. If one purports to be a 'proper Buddhist', then surely one should 'act' accordingly. You, however, appear to have a manner conducive to equanimity; which can only be a good thing for one following a Buddhist path (Secular or Traditional). I shall put Massimo's book on my Amazon wishlist; having watched the video. Interesting talk. Thanks for these videos Doug. Informative and interesting as ever.
Thanks for the kind words, Patrick. Indeed, I see much in Stoicism that's of great benefit. In my next video I will go through some of the differences, so that will outline what one might take as particular strengths or weaknesses of the Buddhist and Stoic positions, depending on one's interests and predilections. At any rate Massimo's book makes worthwhile reading.
I found myself pondering stoicism and how it is rather similar to bhudism. Second I enjoy your comment about it is a livable philosophy. It's like Epictetus says" what good does it do if your learn all there is philosophically but cannot demonstrate through ones actions taken in life.
I heard stoic are influence by early Buddhism. That's why they both mentioned impermanent. By the way, early Buddhism have the path to end the suffering instead of just philosophy
Yes, Buddhism has a more developed path of practice than you find in ancient Greece. Unfortunately the Stoics weren't influenced by early Buddhism. They wouldn't have known anything about it.
@@DougsDharma“ Well there was the Indo-Greek kingdom and many of the Greeks living there were Buddhist. This kingdom existed before stoic philosophy came about, so there is a possibility.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism Comment copy from buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2801/is-there-evidence-of-a-buddhist-influence-on-greek-stoicism
Doug, Pyrrho was influenced by Indian Philosophy. If I am not mistaken, he studied under the Gymnosophists. Those people may not have been Buddhists, but Buddhists, Vedic Brahmins, Jains etc already had a lot in common by then. Buddha himself learnt from other Indians. In fact, the idea of Impermanence goes back to at least Yajnavalkya'. So, through the Gymnosophists, Pyrrho might have learnt even Buddhism. He then took it all back to Greece. Stoicism and Epicureanism began around the same time, isn't it ? So, we can't just come to the conclusion that the Stoics knew nothing about Buddhism. That sounds like Eurocentric Bias to me. We MUST consider at least the possibility. If we don't do even that, it's just not right ...
@@DougsDharma In March 2022 an American-Polish archaeological team excavating an early Roman temple in Berenike, Egypt, uncovered a marble statue of what appeared to be the Buddha. "The Berenike Buddha" suggests the presence Buddhist merchants and scholars from India in Egypt at this time, perhaps earlier (some postulate Egypt was where Jesus had spend his "missing years" ca. aged 12 to 30, as his ethical and moral teachings were a radical departure from those of the religious authorities in Jerusalem).
Great video. Thanks for that, for the links and for the book recommendation. 🙏🏻 Another recommendable practice-oriented book about Stoicism is "A Guide To The Good Life - The Ancient Art Of Stoic Joy" by William B. Irvine.
Nice run down. I have Pagliucci's book, but have yet to read it. I'd be interested in you doing a series where you go in depth on each similarity and difference. It strikes me that Buddhism could have an overhaul in its language and that stoicism might be the key to that overhaul. Though, I should probably read the book before I make any actual suggestions ;)
Thanks Alejandro. I may go into more detail in future if there is continued interest, and meanwhile my next video will be discussing the differences. What do you feel the issues are with language in Buddhism? It is true that there are some concepts that fit best with Pāli or Sanskrit terminology (dukkha, dharma, etc.) but I think there are similar issues with Stoicism, where at times one finds ancient Greek terminology used. That said, the Western tradition generally has more familiarity with ancient Greek philosophical terminology so it may not seem quite so 'foreign'.
Yes, definitely. For me this is a reason to investigate and promulgate early Buddhism though, since it is so little understood. I am hopeful that in fifty or a hundred years words like "dukkha" and names like "Gotama" might be as commonplace as "ataraxia" or "Sophia". You are certainly right that for now this is an uphill struggle, though words like "dharma" and "karma" are already relatively unexceptional. That said, for some people Stoicism could conceivably be a route to Buddhism, depending on their predilections. The reverse could be true as well.
Doug's Secular Dharma I attempt to exclusively refer to Gotama and not "the Buddha", because I am interested in the teachings of the very human, though exceptional guy, much like Einstein and Tesla, who I don't refer to as physicist Einstein or electrician Tesla. Also, words like dukkha, simply need to be imported whole. There is no means of properly interpreting that word. Nothing new here. My favorite rendition of the fourfold task is Gotama's statement "I teach dukkha and the end of dukkha". That's not religious, hoity-toity, or supernatural in anyway. It's clearly stated and gets to the point. Within it are all of the needed components Gotama's dharma and, I believe, is where the language can soften and merge with stoicism. Dude, Buddhism doesn't need my help, it's an incredible tool and ever embedding itself deeper and deeper into the American/Western consciousness. My issue with its presentation is what kept me away from exploring it for so long and what still prevents me from fully embracing it in front of others. So, once again, I appreciate you bringing stoicism into the conversation.
I like what you said about not coralling ourselves with a name. I understand how labels can be helpful in getting a large number of ideas across immediately without having to go into a lot of time and detail about it, but at the same time it seems like it becomes it's own attachment to me. I've started wondering what the benefit of calling something religion is. Like, I learned how to walk from my parents because I see how helpful walking is to me in my life. I don't call it momism or dadism, or say I walk because I'm a dadist. I walk so I can get places and do things. Likewise, I meditate because I see the benefit of it in my life, not because of the label, what purpose then does the label add other than attachment to a sense of belonging? I don't mean I'm arguing against it, I'm just genuinely questioning it.
Well labels help us navigate by understanding more or less what something is going to be like before we try it. So for example if none of the cans in the supermarket had labels we wouldn't know what to pick up to find something we wanted. That said, of course labels aren't perfect, and they can at times deceive.
Beware of utilitarianism. Dont attach yourself to labels, but similarly it's dangerous to enter this ego utility mindset. Beware of becoming a "mindfulness" devil, who just meditates to further his egoic goals
Thank you for this video :) I have a question: what about Buddhism and Epicureanism? Are they comparable in any relevant way or are their approaches simply too different for a comparison to be meaningful?
Yes I think they are also similar in certain ways, though it's been awhile since I read about Epicureanism so I'd have to do some research before making a video on the subject! 😄Stoicism has been more popular recently which is why I made these videos.
@@DougsDharma Thank you for your reply :) It'd be amazing if you made a comparison between the two! Take your time either way, your content is always appreciated☺️
Achieving equanimity is NOT the goal of Stoicism. The goal is to 'live as nature intended' meaning being-the-best-that-you-can-be (as a human being). Equanimity is a consequence. Don't confuse goals with consequences. By analogy, the goal of a corporation is (or should be) to serve its market well. The consequence is profit. When profit becomes the goal, bad things happen.
There is no philosophy that makes happiness a goal but a way.. Happiness is a decision and it is necessary to reach any goal. "Happily achieve instead of achieve to be happy". (Tony R) Equanimity is something else, defined as "evenness of temper" which is a nice thing to master. Once you get rid of ignorance, what is left is happiness. Did you knew that?
cut out the metaphysics if you will... you'll be missing the deeper truths that give it it's real potential. but hey. secular ways work... for the everyman...
1. Trying to achieve equanimity under all circumstances
2. Trying to conquer greed, desire, hatred, anger, ingnorance
3. Focus on practice
4. Focus on ethics (kindness towards yourself and others)
5. Pragmatic philosophies
I had long considered stoicism was to be my 'fate'.. Now I know about secular Buddhism, thank you for your channel. Life
Both are wise practices, you're very welcome Bill.
Thank you for being engaging and getting my mind to move. To wit, I've thought of two more similarities. For the first, there are two intertwined elements, and I can't think of a word that combines the two. If you can think of one let me know.
1. Both Buddhism and Stoicism seek to alleviate the suffering of others, the best example being Seneca's letters. What follows along with this is that both are evangelical. Buddhism had its missionaries, and Stoicism had the Stoa. Not in the Christian sense of evangelism, of course, no threats of hell or demands of repentance. The Buddha went from town to town so that those who were interested could ask him questions or talk to his disciples.
2. Both seem to believe in a kind of Natural Law. In the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha says, "Wouldn't what I've just taught be upheld by the wise?" He doesn't say, "Isn't this what God wants from us?" He cites "the wise," and I think it's quite telling. In Buddhism, the dharma simply is, and I'm pretty sure there's no talk of where it came from. Switching to Stoicism, there are no 10 Commandments. Epictetus may reference God, but he doesn't *really* have any authority to cite other than tried and true practice, whatever works. The Stoics in general seem to believe that there is an underlying structure and pattern to the universe, i.e. Natural Law. In the Greco-Roman world this is called Logos, and in Buddhism it is called Dharma.
Excellent, yes buckley cloud. Those are other similarities. Thanks!
thank you for this. I saw it at the perfect time. I just started the Stoic Path meditation series led by William B. Irvine on Sam Harris' Waking Up app. He speaks at some length on how well the two systems compliment each other. "Like having a nice, strong cup of coffee AND a piece of Swiss chocolate to nibble on" or something to that effect.
Yes they are very compatible in many respects. You're very welcome Graham!
I agree the synergistic effect of meditation compliments life.
Thank you. You did name 6 similarities. When speaking to both being practice oriented you said both highly regarded wisdom/logos. Glad you footnotes it 👍
Hi Doug. It is nice to see you bringing other aspects/philosophies into your videos. Especially where there are so many similarities. I have noticed from other people with the Secular Buddhist realms an almost aggressive defensive towards Secular Buddhism. An attitude that I must say has taken me aback somewhat. If one purports to be a 'proper Buddhist', then surely one should 'act' accordingly. You, however, appear to have a manner conducive to equanimity; which can only be a good thing for one following a Buddhist path (Secular or Traditional).
I shall put Massimo's book on my Amazon wishlist; having watched the video. Interesting talk. Thanks for these videos Doug. Informative and interesting as ever.
Thanks for the kind words, Patrick. Indeed, I see much in Stoicism that's of great benefit. In my next video I will go through some of the differences, so that will outline what one might take as particular strengths or weaknesses of the Buddhist and Stoic positions, depending on one's interests and predilections. At any rate Massimo's book makes worthwhile reading.
This was excellent. Will check out more!
That's nice to hear Scott. I hope it continues to be useful!
I found myself pondering stoicism and how it is rather similar to bhudism.
Second I enjoy your comment about it is a livable philosophy. It's like Epictetus says" what good does it do if your learn all there is philosophically but cannot demonstrate through ones actions taken in life.
Right, important understanding!
I heard stoic are influence by early Buddhism. That's why they both mentioned impermanent.
By the way, early Buddhism have the path to end the suffering instead of just philosophy
Yes, Buddhism has a more developed path of practice than you find in ancient Greece. Unfortunately the Stoics weren't influenced by early Buddhism. They wouldn't have known anything about it.
@@DougsDharma“ Well there was the Indo-Greek kingdom and many of the Greeks living there were Buddhist. This kingdom existed before stoic philosophy came about, so there is a possibility.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism
Comment copy from buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2801/is-there-evidence-of-a-buddhist-influence-on-greek-stoicism
Doug, Pyrrho was influenced by Indian Philosophy. If I am not mistaken, he studied under the Gymnosophists. Those people may not have been Buddhists, but Buddhists, Vedic Brahmins, Jains etc already had a lot in common by then. Buddha himself learnt from other Indians. In fact, the idea of Impermanence goes back to at least Yajnavalkya'. So, through the Gymnosophists, Pyrrho might have learnt even Buddhism. He then took it all back to Greece. Stoicism and Epicureanism began around the same time, isn't it ? So, we can't just come to the conclusion that the Stoics knew nothing about Buddhism. That sounds like Eurocentric Bias to me. We MUST consider at least the possibility. If we don't do even that, it's just not right ...
@@DougsDharma In March 2022 an American-Polish archaeological team excavating an early Roman temple in Berenike, Egypt, uncovered a marble statue of what appeared to be the Buddha. "The Berenike Buddha" suggests the presence Buddhist merchants and scholars from India in Egypt at this time, perhaps earlier (some postulate Egypt was where Jesus had spend his "missing years" ca. aged 12 to 30, as his ethical and moral teachings were a radical departure from those of the religious authorities in Jerusalem).
Great topic.
Glad you enjoyed!
I find strength in both. They never lie to me. It's just truth. They help me in the real world.
Yes they are both deep sources of wisdom.
Great video. Thanks for that, for the links and for the book recommendation. 🙏🏻
Another recommendable practice-oriented book about Stoicism is "A Guide To The Good Life - The Ancient Art Of Stoic Joy" by William B. Irvine.
Yes, you're very welcome xiao mao! I have heard of that book and will put it on my list to check out in the future. 🙏
👍Nice video. Just found your channel. I’ll checkout your other videos
Thanks LovingAtlanta! Glad you enjoyed.
Nice run down. I have Pagliucci's book, but have yet to read it. I'd be interested in you doing a series where you go in depth on each similarity and difference. It strikes me that Buddhism could have an overhaul in its language and that stoicism might be the key to that overhaul. Though, I should probably read the book before I make any actual suggestions ;)
Thanks Alejandro. I may go into more detail in future if there is continued interest, and meanwhile my next video will be discussing the differences. What do you feel the issues are with language in Buddhism? It is true that there are some concepts that fit best with Pāli or Sanskrit terminology (dukkha, dharma, etc.) but I think there are similar issues with Stoicism, where at times one finds ancient Greek terminology used. That said, the Western tradition generally has more familiarity with ancient Greek philosophical terminology so it may not seem quite so 'foreign'.
Doug's Secular Dharma , that's exactly my point. Ancient Greek terminology verges on being English. My daughters name is Sophia, and not by accident.
Yes, definitely. For me this is a reason to investigate and promulgate early Buddhism though, since it is so little understood. I am hopeful that in fifty or a hundred years words like "dukkha" and names like "Gotama" might be as commonplace as "ataraxia" or "Sophia". You are certainly right that for now this is an uphill struggle, though words like "dharma" and "karma" are already relatively unexceptional. That said, for some people Stoicism could conceivably be a route to Buddhism, depending on their predilections. The reverse could be true as well.
Doug's Secular Dharma I attempt to exclusively refer to Gotama and not "the Buddha", because I am interested in the teachings of the very human, though exceptional guy, much like Einstein and Tesla, who I don't refer to as physicist Einstein or electrician Tesla. Also, words like dukkha, simply need to be imported whole. There is no means of properly interpreting that word. Nothing new here.
My favorite rendition of the fourfold task is Gotama's statement "I teach dukkha and the end of dukkha". That's not religious, hoity-toity, or supernatural in anyway. It's clearly stated and gets to the point. Within it are all of the needed components Gotama's dharma and, I believe, is where the language can soften and merge with stoicism.
Dude, Buddhism doesn't need my help, it's an incredible tool and ever embedding itself deeper and deeper into the American/Western consciousness. My issue with its presentation is what kept me away from exploring it for so long and what still prevents me from fully embracing it in front of others.
So, once again, I appreciate you bringing stoicism into the conversation.
I like what you said about not coralling ourselves with a name. I understand how labels can be helpful in getting a large number of ideas across immediately without having to go into a lot of time and detail about it, but at the same time it seems like it becomes it's own attachment to me. I've started wondering what the benefit of calling something religion is. Like, I learned how to walk from my parents because I see how helpful walking is to me in my life. I don't call it momism or dadism, or say I walk because I'm a dadist. I walk so I can get places and do things. Likewise, I meditate because I see the benefit of it in my life, not because of the label, what purpose then does the label add other than attachment to a sense of belonging? I don't mean I'm arguing against it, I'm just genuinely questioning it.
Well labels help us navigate by understanding more or less what something is going to be like before we try it. So for example if none of the cans in the supermarket had labels we wouldn't know what to pick up to find something we wanted. That said, of course labels aren't perfect, and they can at times deceive.
@@DougsDharma Wow, that was a really good way of putting it, that really made sense to me!
Beware of utilitarianism. Dont attach yourself to labels, but similarly it's dangerous to enter this ego utility mindset. Beware of becoming a "mindfulness" devil, who just meditates to further his egoic goals
Thank you for this video :) I have a question: what about Buddhism and Epicureanism? Are they comparable in any relevant way or are their approaches simply too different for a comparison to be meaningful?
Yes I think they are also similar in certain ways, though it's been awhile since I read about Epicureanism so I'd have to do some research before making a video on the subject! 😄Stoicism has been more popular recently which is why I made these videos.
@@DougsDharma Thank you for your reply :) It'd be amazing if you made a comparison between the two! Take your time either way, your content is always appreciated☺️
Achieving equanimity is NOT the goal of Stoicism. The goal is to 'live as nature intended' meaning being-the-best-that-you-can-be (as a human being). Equanimity is a consequence. Don't confuse goals with consequences. By analogy, the goal of a corporation is (or should be) to serve its market well. The consequence is profit. When profit becomes the goal, bad things happen.
Thanks for your input totus.
Some concrete examples would be helpful and maybe slow down a bit. Thank you so much 🙏🏻
Noted, thanks Nick.
Very interesting.
Thanks Brian, if you get a chance let me know what you found most interesting! 🙂
I read that book. I rather enjoyed it.
Yes it's not bad!
Video starts @ 2:13
Isn't "happiness" the goal of Stoicism rather than "equanimity"? (and equanimity would be the mean)
Good question Ah Fei and I am not an expert on Stoicism, but as I understand it a truly equanimous mind is a truly happy mind for Stoicism.
There is no philosophy that makes happiness a goal but a way.. Happiness is a decision and it is necessary to reach any goal. "Happily achieve instead of achieve to be happy". (Tony R)
Equanimity is something else, defined as "evenness of temper" which is a nice thing to master.
Once you get rid of ignorance, what is left is happiness. Did you knew that?
@@callroland Tony R is a con-artist
cut out the metaphysics if you will... you'll be missing the deeper truths that give it it's real potential. but hey. secular ways work... for the everyman...