The Stoic, Stoicism & Christianity
Immortalist
events...Seek not that the things which happen should happen as you wish;
but wish the things which happen to be as they are, and you will have a
tranquil flow of life. Men are not worried by things, but by their ideas
about things. When we meet difficulties, become anxious or troubled, let us
not blame others, but rather ourselves, that is: our idea about things ...
Some things are up to us and some are not up to us. Our opinions are up to
us, our impulses, desires, aversions, in-short whatever is our doing. Our
bodies are not up to us, nor our possessions, our reputations, or our public
offices, or that is, whatever is not of our own doing.
--Epictetus
-----------------------------------
Stoicism teaches self-control and detachment from distracting emotions,
sometimes interpreted as an indifference to pleasure or pain. Stoics believe
that this allows one to be a clear thinker, level-headed and unbiased. In
practice, Stoicism is intended to imbue an individual with virtue, wisdom,
and integrity of character. Students are encouraged to be altruistic as well
as psychologically independent from society, regarding it as an unruly and
often unreasonable entity while encouraging active engagement in improving
society.
Virtue, reason, and natural law are prime directives. By mastering passions
and emotions, stoics believe it is possible to overcome the discord of the
outside world and find peace within oneself. Stoicism holds that passion
distorts truth, and that the pursuit of truth is virtuous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
The Stoics' core message was that human emotions are not passive reactions
but are subject to cognitive control. Thoughts, opinions and interpretations
cause, mediate and shape emotions, which the Stoics saw as something of an
act of judgment and will, and a matter of our own responsibility. But
Stoicism can also become extreme, enabling individuals to detach themselves
to survive or to kill, which sometimes leaves the doer with lasting trauma.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195152166/
The Stoics held that emotions like fear or envy (or impassioned sexual
attachments, or passionate love of anything whatsoever) either were, or
arose from, false judgements and that the sage--a person who had attained
moral and intellectual perfection--would not undergo them.
The later Stoics of Roman Imperial times, Seneca and Epictetus, emphasise
the doctrines (already central to the early Stoics' teachings) that the sage
is utterly immune to misfortune and that virtue is sufficient for happiness.
Our phrase 'stoic calm' perhaps encapsulates the general drift of these
claims.
When considering the doctrines of the Stoics, it is important to remember
that they think of philosophy not as an interesting pastime or even a
particular body of knowledge, but as a way of life. They define philosophy
as a kind of practice or exercise in the expertise concerning what is
beneficial. Once we come to know what we and the world around us are really
like, and especially the nature of value, we will be utterly transformed.
In the Sophist Plato asks for a mark or indication of what is real or what
has being. One answer which is mooted is that the capacity to act or be
acted upon is the distinctive mark of real existence or 'that which is.' The
Stoics accept this criterion and add the rider that only bodies can act or
be acted upon. Thus, only bodies exist.
However, they allow that there are other ways of being part of nature than
by virtue of existing. Incorporeal things like time, place or sayables
(lekta, see below) are 'subsistent' (huphestos, Galen 27G)--as are imaginary
things like centaurs. Moreover, all existent things are particular. The
Stoics call universals 'figments of the mind' and seem to offer a
conceptualist treatment akin to Locke's, treating an apparent predication
like "man is a rational, mortal animal" as the disguised conditional, "if
something is a man, then it is a rational mortal animal" (Sextus Empiricus,
30I).
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/
Later Stoics believed that the universe was created by fire and would be
destroyed by fire, before being created again. The goal of Stoicism was to
bring the human mind into agreement with the Logos, the impersonal force of
reason who formed the universe and to recognise that the Logos did so for
mankind's benefit, regardless of personal circumstance.[5] The Logos might
be described by a Stoic as "the soul of the universe" while the physical
world was the universe's body. While some claim that this is not true
pantheism,[6] it has to be noted that Stoics believed that everything was
material, even god.
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/stoics.php
The Stoic philosophy appeared in a time when people were looking not to the
years ahead but to the past for their ideals, expecting little of the future
but more weariness and futility. Slavery was the evil social foundation
undergirding the whole magnificent Greek civilization. The common people
suffered terrible poverty, the economic system was faced with hopeless
problems, political life was apparently beyond rescue. It was a tired age,
lived amid some of the most splendid architecture the world had seen, but
the inherited magnificence had no relationship to the human conditions which
prevailed. These were among the seedbeds of Christianity with its
otherworldly hope of civilization, and the matrix of antiquity's noblest
secular philosophy, Stoicism.
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/med/me-sams.htm
Stoicism's influence on Christianity
Although Stoicism was considered by many early Fathers of the Church to be a
part of the philosophical decline of the ancient world, many of its elements
were held in high esteem, in particular, the natural law, which is a major
part of the Roman Catholic and early American doctrines of secular public
morality. The central Stoic idea of logos influenced Christian thought (see
John 1). The Stoic definition of virtue as the conformance of the will to
the rational order of the world has parallels with traditional Christian
morality. The Stoic cosmopolitanism influenced Augustine of Hippo's concept
of the City of God. Stoicism influenced the Christian Boethius in his
Consolation of Philosophy, a book which promotes Christian morality via
secular philosophy; this book was highly influential in the Middle Ages.
The appeal of Stoicism to Christianity may be due to the fact that Stoicism
is largely based on Semitic and not Greek philosophy, and so perhaps there
is a more natural compatibility with the Jewish roots of Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
Justin Martyr carefully noted the natural affinities between the emerging
Christian theology and the traditions of thought deriving from Plato, and
Origen explicitly endeavored to combine the two in a single system. This
path of development continued for centuries, reaching its peak in Gregory of
Nyssa and Ambrose, who was the teacher of Augustine.
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2w.htm
Eastern Philosophy Conquers Rome
We have seen that the new Romans brought with them eastern religions which,
to the early Latins would have been repugnant to their nature. But, there
was a race change in Italy. The new race was mainly of easterners who felt
right at home in the old Babylonian Sun-cults and mystery religions. It is
hardly any wonder that Rome went over to Babylonianism. As Dr. Frank says:
"The Mystery cults permeated the city, Italy and the western provinces only
to such an extent as the city, Italy and the provinces were permeated by the
stock that had created those religions."
Frank, "Race Mixture in the Roman Empire," p.707
Understanding that these new Romans readily accepted those beliefs which
appealed to their temperaments, it will pay us to review the philosophies
which those eastern Romans accepted. The origin of the later Roman
philosophies were directly from the east. They were mainly from Syria.
Indeed, the one philosophical belief which gained practically universal
approval and acceptance by Roman society in the first and second centuries
was the Stoic philosophy.
Stoicism is one of the most interesting philosophies that ever came out of
the east. It has been compared as the most "Christian" of all philosophies.
Many books have been written endeavoring to show the remarkable parallels
between Stoicism and Christianity (especially Roman Catholicism). There is
some definite agreement between Catholicism and this philosophy. The
philosophy taught the universal brotherhood of man, the doing away with
national barriers, the encouragement of intermarriage and having one law
over all. They called the ideal state as one governed by a central city, the
city of God. When the Roman Empire came along, the Stoic philosophers saw in
the Empire the ideal physical state if it were only administered humanely
and for the public benefit. Because of this, and other reasons, the Stoic
philosophy was taught in profusion over the Empire, and nowhere was it
accepted more, and with a type of religious crusading spirit, than in Italy.
In the first and second centuries, Platonic teachings in their primitive
state were not as popular as they had been. The system of Aristotle was not
altogether accepted because his teaching was not universal enough.
Epicureanism, the only possible rival of Stoicism, was too selfish,
anti-religious and not conducive to universal brotherhood. Only one
philosophy suited the Roman temperament in the early Empire - that was
Stoicism. It was the one philosophy that did not, in one way or another,
repudiate the pagan gods. It agreed that they should definitely be retained
for man, for his happiness and man's need for religion.
The Stoic philosophers encouraged to a great degree the teachings of
paganism. The religion that the later Stoics promoted was generally the
Roman variety because their utopian city of world rule was Rome. Only by
acknowledging Rome could they hope to achieve their universal state. And
they gained their world-state to a remarkable degree through the Empire. It
is little wonder why most of the noble Romans accepted the doctrines of
Stoicism and not the other philosophies. No philosophy suited the
temperaments of the later Romans more than this one of eastern origination.
Stoicism was the Babylonian reaction to Greek philosophy. Stoicism was the
philosophy designed for the eastern peoples who were mainly of Semitic stock
(though there were some Persian mixtures). It was the philosophy designed to
maintain Chaldeanism in an age which looked like Greek secular philosophy
might take the place of religion. Thus, Stoic philosophy was invented to
retain Chaldeanism amongst the intellectuals, and it succeeded remarkably.
The whole Roman world virtually succumbed to it.
Stoicism, thus, was the philosophy of easterners who became the later
Romans. The wide spread acceptance of this normally alien philosophy is a
strong indication that the Romans who grasped onto it were also the people
who invented it. As the Syro-Phoenicians and Samaritans progressively
migrated westward into Rome and Italy, they simply carried their religious
and philosophical beliefs with them. And because those beliefs proved to be
far superior to what the people in the west had formerly believed about the
old Republican gods and goddesses of Rome, they promoted these eastern
deities to the highest pantheon within the Roman Empire of the third and
fourth centuries. These were the pagan religions that Constantine and his
successors were imbued with at the time they began to see in Christianity
the vehicle with which to preserve and to transform Rome into a new and
dynamic state. And they were successful.
Indeed, there was nothing inferior about these eastern religions and
philosophical beliefs nor the people who brought them to the west. They were
the very teachings that Constantine and his followers adopted. True, they
changed their names and the doctrines which they advocated into names that
were derived from the New Testament. In effect, the later emperors retained
pagan idolatrous worship which had come from ancient Babylon and began to
call it the religion of Christianity. Constantine struck coins in honor of
Helios the Sun-god long after he claimed to be a Christian. These idolatrous
teachings and practices, however, were as different as daylight and dark
from those taught by Jesus and his apostles. Of this there can be no doubt.
The primary person who was responsible for establishing the syncretic
development of mixing paganism into Christianity, so the New Testament and
the early Christian scholars inform us, was Simon Magus. It took about 300
years for the syncretic principles of Simon Magus to make an impact on
orthodox Christianity. But with Constantine the Great, the seeds of the
syncretism fell on fertile ground. From then on, idolatry and pagan
doctrines and customs began to enter mainline Christianity.
An observer during the time of Constantine was the great Christian historian
Eusebius. He mentioned that Simon Magus was indeed the originator of all
heresy in the Christian community and that even in his day there were people
who were feigning Christianity but at the same time were bringing into vogue
the use of idolatrous images.
Mainline Christians did hold out against the philosophies of Simon Magus
until the time of Constantine. But the 50 years after Constantine saw the
doors open wide for the blending of pagan doctrines, customs, images,
pictures, etc. with the mainstream teachings of the visible Christian
Church. And we have been saddled with them ever since.
http://askelm.com/people/peo019.htm
Over the course of human history every society, even the most culturally
isolated of civilizations, has developed some form of faith-system for
interpreting and understanding the spiritual and material worlds. Thousands
of such systems have existed over the centuries, and as tribes and cultures
expanded, these faith-systems inevitably met each other face-to-face and
clashed. Two thousand years ago there was a particularly important
collision; one between the Roman stoic and the gentile Christian. At this
time in Western civilization, Christianity was just planting its seeds and
beginning to grow, whereas stoicism was already legitimate in its foundation
and strong in its following (Stavrianos 100). One might wonder how
Christianity ultimately replaced stoicism as the ...
http://www.123helpme.com/preview.asp?id=22165
Via Romana
http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/index.html
The Rebirth of Stoicism
http://puffin.creighton.edu/phil/Stephens/rebirth_of_stoicism.htm
http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/stoicism.htm
http://ecole.evansville.edu/articles/stoicism.html
http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/Stoic.htm
http://zork.cs.uvic.ca/quotes/stoics_encyclopedia.html
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/stoic10.txt
http://www2.selu.edu/Academics/Depts/WritingCenter/miller.html
http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y67s10a.html
Immortalist
Sean
>
Good info about the Stoics.
----------------------------------------------------------
Practice the Art of Detachment.
Let Your Thoughts and Emotions Pass,
Like the Shadow of a Bird
Flying Over the Water.
Go With, Not Against, Your Nature.
Bruce Lee
To people looking at Buddhism through the medium of English, the practice of
compassion and detachment can appear incompatible, especially for those who
consider themselves to be socially and politically engaged. In contemporary
usage, compassion brings to mind outward-moving concern for others, while
detachment suggests aloofness and withdrawal from the world. Yet Buddhism
recommends both as admirable and necessary qualities to be cultivated. This
raises questions such as the following:
. If compassion means to relieve suffering in a positive way, and
detachment to remain aloof from the world, how can the two be practised
together?
. Does detachment in Buddhism imply lack of concern for humanity?
. Is the concept of compassion in Buddhism too passive, connected only
with the inward-looking eye of meditation, or can it create real change in
society?
It is certainly possible to draw sentences from Buddhist writers which seem
to support a rejection of outward concern for others. For example, Edward
Conze has written, "The Yogin can only come into contact with the
unconditioned when he brushes aside anything which is conditioned."1
Similarly, G.S.P. Misra writes, "In the final analysis, all actions are to
be put to cessation" . The Buddha speaks of happiness involved in non-action
which he further says is an integral part of the Right Way (sammå
pa?ipadå).2 Taken in isolation and out of context, these remarks can give
the impression that the path to Nibbåna implies developing a lack of concern
towards everything in saµsåra. But is this inference sound? I would argue
that it is not.
This is an issue which touches on the whole question of transferring
concepts across linguistic barriers, in this case Påli and English. It calls
not only for an understanding of how the concepts are used within the
framework of the Påli Buddhist texts, but also for an awareness of how the
English terms used in translation function and whether they are adequate.
Inevitably, a dialogical approach between two linguistic frameworks is
necessary.
Detachment :
Viveka and viråga are the two Påli words which have been translated as
"detachment." The two, however, are not synonymous. The primary meaning of
viveka is separation, aloofness, seclusion. Often physical withdrawal is
implied. The later commentTimes New Roman tradition, however, identifies
three forms of viveka: kåya-viveka (physical withdrawal), citta-viveka
(mental withdrawal), and upadhi-viveka (withdrawal from the roots of
suffering).
Kåya-viveka, as a chosen way of life, was not uncommon during the time of
the Buddha. To withdraw from the household life, renounce possessions, and
adopt a solitary mendicancy was a recognized path. The formation of the
Buddhist monastic Sangha was grounded in the belief that going out from home
to homelessness (agårasmå anagåriyaµ pabbajati) could aid concentrated
spiritual effort. Yet to equate the renunciation which the Buddha encouraged
with a physical withdrawal which either punished the body or completely
rejected human contact would be a mistake.
The Buddha made it clear that the detachment of a noble disciple
(ariyasåvaka)-the detachment connected with the path-was not essentially a
physical act of withdrawal, let alone austerity. Kåya-viveka was valuable
only if seen as a means to the inner purging and mental transformation
connected with the destruction of craving. This is illustrated in the
Udumbarika S¥hanåda Sutta in which the Buddha claims that the asceticism of
a recluse who clings to solitude could lead to pride, carelessness,
attention-seeking, and hypocrisy, if not linked to the cultivation of moral
virtues and the effort to gain insight through meditation.3
A further insight is given in the Nivåpa Sutta, which weaves a lengthy story
around the relationship of four herds of deer with a certain crop,
representing sensual pleasure, sown by the hunter (Måra) for the deers'
ensnaring. Both the ascetics who crave for pleasure, and those who deny
themselves any enjoyment in an extreme way, are destroyed. Referring to the
latter, the Buddha says:
"Because their bodies were extremely emaciated, their strength and energy
diminished, freedom of mind diminished; because freedom of mind diminished,
they went back to the very crop sown by Måra-the material things of this
world."4
The message of the sutta is that ascetic withdrawal can reduce the mind's
ability to discern. It can also lead to the repression of mental tendencies
rather than to their rooting out and destruction.
The detachment of which Buddhism speaks, therefore, is not an extreme
turning away from that which normally nourishes the human body. Neither is
it a closing of the eyes to all beauty, as is clear from the following:
"Delightful, reverend Ónanda, is the Gosinga sal-wood. It is a clear
moonlit night; the sal-trees are in full blossom. Methinks deva-like scents
are being wafted around ."5
This is an expression of delight uttered by Såriputta, an arahant, on
meeting some fellow monks one night.
One must look away from external acts and towards the area of inner
attitudes and motivation for a true understanding of the role of detachment
in Buddhism. Physical withdrawal is only justified if it is linked to inner
moral purification and meditation. In this light, citta-viveka and
upadhi-viveka become necessary subdivisions to bring out the full
implications of detachment within Buddhist spiritual practice.
Upadhi-viveka, as withdrawal from the roots of suffering, links up with
viråga, the second word used within Buddhism to denote detachment.
Viråga literally means the absence of råga: the absence of lust, desire, and
craving for existence. Hence, it denotes indifference or non-attachment to
the usual objects of råga, such as material goods or sense pleasures.
Non-attachment is an important term here if the Påli is to be meaningful to
speakers of English. It is far more appropriate than "detachment" because of
the negative connotations "detachment" possesses in English. Råga is a close
relation of upådåna (grasping) which, within the causal chain binding human
beings to repeated births, grows from ta^hå (craving) and results in
bhava-continued saµsåric existence. The English word "non-attachment"
suggests a way of looking at both of them.
The Buddhist texts refer to four strands of grasping (upådåna): grasping of
sense pleasures (kåmupådåna), of views (di??hËpådåna), of rule and custom
(s¥labbatupådåna), of doctrines of self (attavådupådåna). All of these can
also be described as forms of råga or desire. To destroy their power over
the human psyche, attachment to them must be transformed into
non-attachment. Non-attachment or non-grasping would therefore flow from the
awareness that no possession, no relationship, no achievement is permanent
or able to give lasting satisfaction; from the discovery that there is no
self which needs to be protected, promoted, or defended; and from the
realization that searching for selfish sensual gratification is pointless,
since it leads only to craving and obsession. Phrases which overlap with
attachment in this context and which can help to clarify its meaning are:
possessiveness in relationships, defensiveness, jealousy, covetousness,
acquisitiveness, and competitiveness. Through non-attachment, these are
attenuated and overcome. There is nothing yet in this description which
points to a lack of concern for humanity or the world. The emphasis is
rather on inner transformation so that destructive and divisive traits can
be destroyed, making way for their opposites to flourish.
To take attachment to sense pleasures as an example, many suttas mention the
peril involved. The person attached to sense pleasures is likened to a "wet,
sappy stick" placed in water. As such a stick cannot be used to light a
fire, so the one addicted to sense pleasures cannot attain the "incomparable
self-awakening" (anuttaråya sambodhåya).6 He is one with whom Måra can do
what he likes.7 He is like one holding a blazing torch, which must be
dropped if burning and pain is to be avoided.8 In fact, it is stressed that
attachment to sense pleasures destroys the mind's ability to think clearly
and objectively. Viråga, on the other hand, is linked to the practice of
mindfulness (satipa??håna) and to seeing into the truth of things. For
Buddhists, therefore, non-attachment or detachment (viråga) does not mean a
withdrawal from striving for truth but a movement towards seeing the true
nature of things more clearly. In contrast, saråga (attachment) leads to
biased and false perceptions, since objects are sensed through a net of
predispositions towards attraction and aversion.
Seeing the truth through non-attachment can operate both at a mundane and a
higher level. At a mundane level, for instance, if greed always arises when
an opportunity for gaining quick wealth is glimpsed, wealth will never be
seen objectively as it really is-as transient, subject to change, and no
answer to the search for happiness. Because of råga, neither the
consequences nor the alternatives will be appreciated. In fact, if any
decision has to be made, the alternatives will not be seen clearly as long
as the mind is clouded by råga. Dishonesty and the manipulation of others in
order to gain what is craved might result.
With reference to the higher stages of insight, satipa??håna, viveka, and
viråga are intertwined. Found in many suttas are words such as the
following:
"He (the monk) chooses some lonely spot to rest on his way-in the woods,
at the foot of tree, on a hillside and returning there after alms round, he
seats himself, when his meal is done, cross-legged ." (kåya-viveka)9
"Putting away the hankering after the world, he remains with a heart that
hankers not, and purifies his mind of lusts."10
"Aloof from the pleasures of the senses, aloof from unskilled states of
mind, he enters and abides in the first jhåna ." (citta-viveka and
viråga).11
The ultimate results of such practices are the four jhånas or absorptions;
the verification, by direct vision, of the doctrine of karma; insight into
the Four Noble Truths; and eventually, the knowledge that release from
rebirth has been gained. Viråga is, in fact, a prerequisite for attaining
nibbåna and the treatment of the word in the texts implies that the two are
almost synonymous.
At this point, it is worth looking at how the word "detachment" has been
used in the Western tradition. In colloquial usage, to say that a person is
detached can be derogatory, implying that the person is not willing to
become involved with others or that he or she is neither approachable nor
sympathetic. This current usage must be born in mind. Three strands of
meaning, however, emerge from most dictionary definitions. Primarily,
detachment refers to the action and process of separating. Flowing from this
has come the military usage to describe the dispatch of a body of troops.
More relevant to this study, however, is the third body of meanings
connected with detachment as an attitude of mind. "Aloofness" and
"indifference to worldly concerns" are phrases used to describe this
attitude. Although these might appear to conform to the above-mentioned
contemporary connotations, we find linked with this (in Webster's
Dictionary, for example) "freedom from bias and prejudice." Thus, in both
the Western tradition and the Eastern, "detachment" is linked with clarity
of perception, nonpartiality, and fair judgement.
Voices supporting this come from the Christian mystical tradition and the
contemporary scientific world. Classical Christian mysticism saw
indifference to worldly and material concerns as an essential component of
the movement towards God. Fulfilling God's will with total love and
obedience was accompanied by detachment from the worldly. In modern
scientific research a similar quality is emphasized. A commitment to truth
is recognized but so is the necessity for a mind detached from the results
of research, detached from the wish for a particular outcome. For it is
known that if the scientist is searching for one particular scientific
result, he might unconsciously manipulate the experiments or observations in
order to obtain that result.
Therefore, when looking at the implications of "detachment," it is worth
taking into account Western usage as well. The socially active person can be
quick to look down on those who appear either distanced from or untouched by
the social, economic, and political crises facing the world. But they should
remember that detachment can have a positive fruit even in relation to
social activism: the ability to see the truth more clearly and to judge more
impartially.
To return to the Buddhist tradition: The Buddha was once faced with the
remark that the most worthy person is the one who speaks neither in
dispraise of the unworthy nor in praise of the praiseworthy. The Buddha
disagreed with this. He replied that, because of his ability to
discriminate, the person who speaks in dispraise of the unworthy and in
praise of worthy is best.12 The Buddha rejects the self-distancing which
refuses to take sides or to speak out against what should be condemned. He
criticizes the desire to keep the truth inviolate and unspoken through a
wish not to become involved with society. Viveka and viråga therefore do not
imply the kind of withdrawal which is unconcerned with what is good or bad
for human welfare.
The fruits of non-attachment are not only linked with the gaining of
knowledge, the "incomparable self-awakening," but are also related to
creating a just and harmonious society. The Mahådukkhakkhandha Sutta makes a
direct connection between attachment to sense pleasures and the movement
towards chaos in society. Greed for the possessions of another leads to
disputes and contentions at the level of both the family and nation, until
"having taken sword and shield, having girded bow and quiver, both sides
mass for battle and arrows are hurled and swords are flashing."13 In the
same sutta, theft, adultery, and vicious corporal punishment are likewise
attributed to sense pleasures and attachment to them.
In other texts, attachment to views is spoken about as a cause of disputes,
especially in the religious community. Yet the point drawn is relevant to
the whole of society. The result of a person asserting, "This is the very
truth, all else is falsehood," is dispute. And: "If there is dispute, there
is contention; if there is contention, there is trouble; if there is
trouble, there is vexation."14
Therefore, far from implying lack of concern for the welfare of others,
detachment from such things as sensual desires and the urge to assert
dogmatic views is seen as essential to it. We are back to the four strands
of grasping and the need to root these out.
http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/H/Harris/detachmentHarris.html
or
DETACHMENT FROM THE SENSES
The passions and cravings of the flesh often arise from the percep-
tions of the senses. Therefore, subduing desire begins by cultivating an
attitude of detachment towards sense perceptions, by regarding them as
impermanent, transient, and of no account. This teaching is stressed in
the Bhagavad Gita and in Buddhist scriptures. Related is the injunction
by Jesus that "if your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw
it away," which is illustrated by the story of the Buddhist nun Subha.
Just as one does not touch a sensuous woman entering an empty house, so is
he who does not touch the sense objects that have entered into him, a
renouncer, an ascetic, a self-sacrificer.
Hinduism. Maitri Upanishad 6.10
All bodhisattvas, lesser and great, should develop a pure, lucid mind, not
depending upon sound, flavor, touch, odor, or any quality. A bodhisattva
should develop a mind which alights upon no thing whatsoever; and so
should he establish it.
Buddhism. Diamond Sutra 10
When the senses contact sense objects, a person experiences cold or heat,
pleasure or pain. These experiences are fleeting; they come and go. Bear
them patiently, Arjuna. Those who are not affected by these changes, who
are the same in pleasure and pain, are truly wise and fit for immortality.
Assert your strength and realize this!...
The disunited mind is far from wise; how can it meditate? How can it be
at peace? When you know no peace, how can you know joy? When you let
your mind follow the call of the senses, they carry away your better
judgement as storms drive a boat off its charted course on the sea.
Use all of your power to free the senses from attachment and aversion
alike, and live in the full wisdom of the Self.
Hinduism. Bhagavad Gita 2.14-15, 66-68
Monks, there are these three feelings. What three? Pleasant feeling,
painful feeling, and feeling that is neither painful nor pleasant. Pleas-
ant feeling, monks, should be looked upon as pain, painful feeling should
be looked upon as a barb, feeling that is neither painful nor pleasant
should be looked upon as impermanent. When these three feelings are
looked upon in these ways by a monk, that monk is called "rightly seeing."
Buddhism. Itivuttaka 47
The five colors make man's eyes blind;
The five notes make his hears deaf;
The five flavors injure his palate;
Riding and hunting make his mind go mad.
Goods hard to come by serve to hinder his progress.
Hence the sage is for the belly and not the eye.
Therefore he discards the one and takes the other.
Taoism. Tao Te Ching 12
If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is
better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be
thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off
and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than
that your whole body go into hell.
Christianity. Matthew 5.29-30
In Jivaka's pleasant wood walked Subh-a the bhikkuni. A gallant met her
there and barred the way. Subh-a said this to him,
"What have I done to offend you, that you stand obstructing me?
For it is not fitting, sir, that a man should touch a sister in orders.
This has my Master ordained in the precepts we honor and follow. So has
the Welcome One taught in the training wherein they have trained me to be
purified, disciplined, holy. Why do you stand blocking my pathway? I am
pure; you impure of heart; I am passionless, you of vile passions; I am
wholly freed in spirit and blameless. Why do you obnoxiously stand obs-
tructing me?"
"You are young, maiden, and faultless--what do you seek in the holy
life? Cast off that yellow robe and come! In the blossoming woodland let
us seek our pleasure. Filled with the incense of blossoms, the trees waft
sweetness. See, the spring is at the prime, the season of happiness.
Come with me then to the flowering woodland, and let us seek our plea-
sure....
"Dearer and sweeter to me than are you is no creature on earth, you
with languid and slow-moving eyes of an elf in the forest. If you will do
my bidding, come where the joys of the sheltered life await you; dwell in
a house of verandas and terraces, with handmaidens serving you. Robe
yourself with delicate garments, don garlands, use unguents. I will give
you many and varied ornaments, fashioned with precious stones, gold work,
and pearls. You will mount on a couch fair and sumptuous, carved in sand-
alwood, fragrant with essences, spread with new pillows, coverlets fleecy
and soft..."
"What so infatuates you about this carcass, filled with carrion, to
fill a grave, so fragile, that it seems to warrant such words?"
"Eyes you have like a gazelle's, like an elf's in the heart of the
mountains--'tis those eyes of yours, sight of which feeds the depth of my
passion. Shrined in your dazzling, immaculate face as in the calyx of a
lotus, 'tis those eye of yours, sight of which feeds the strength of my
passion. Though you be far from me, how could I ever forget you, O
maiden, you of long-drawn eyelashes, you of eyes so miraculous?..."
"O you are blind! You chase a sham, deluded by puppet shows seen
in the midst of the crowd; you deem of value and genuine conjurer's trick-
work.... What is this eye but a little ball lodged in the fork of a
hollow tree, bubble of film, anointed with tear-brine, exuding slime-
drops, compost wrought in the shape of an eye of manifold aspects?"
Forthwith the maiden so lovely tore out her eye and gave it to him.
"Here, then! Take your eye!" Her heart unattached, she sinned not.
Straightaway the lust in him ceased and he begged her pardon. "O
pure and holy maid, would that you might recover your sight! Never again
will I do such a thing. You have sore smitten my sin; blazing flames have
I clasped to my bosom; a poisonous snake I have handled--but O, be healed
and forgive me!"
Freed from molesting, the bhikkuni went on her way to the Buddha,
chief of the Awakened. There in his presence, seeing those features born
of utmost merit, her eye was restored.
Buddhism. Therigatha 366-99, Subha Jivakambavanika
http://www.unification.net/ws/theme132.htm
William Elliot
> Stoicism teaches self-control and detachment from distracting emotions,
Stoics teaches "lump it".
Have you learn your lesson yet?
leo
I have to read your post slowly. It has too many points o consider.
In general I have been always suspecting about general philosophy,
until I realized that I was also a sort of philosopher myself. Even
scientist are philosophers in a way, but each one works on a
restricted field.
You touch the point of happiness. You said:
<The later Stoics of Roman Imperial times, Seneca and Epictetus,
emphasise
the doctrines (already central to the early Stoics' teachings) that the
sage
is utterly immune to misfortune and that virtue is sufficient for
happiness. >
In general, happiness is related to the habit of expecting often
probably pleasant events.
Of course, that condition had to be coupled with a sort of "virtuous
life". It has to be virtuous in the sense that "you have no to engage
in illegal behaviour, and also the person has to have some means to
survive". So it is a composite situation, for even if you have a
virtuous life, this is not strictly the only condition of being happy,
for I had seen some people that had the habit of expecting of
unpleasant evens that are going to happen or are already happening in
any part of the world.
I remember to be chatting with marxists and they were sort of unhappy
because of the ills poor people were suffering in this world caused by
capitalist exploitation. Another light-marxist I knew was suffering
about the same; in general he was suffering by all the ills of this
world, even if they were not caused by the action of capitalists. So
their philosphy made them unhappy.
On the other hand, I have been in contact with some groups of literary
fans that happened to be marxist in general. Well, their best works of
literature were those that show social life, and life in general, on a
depressive mood. Illuminating with a pessimistic all their writing.
So, as my stories lack such a depressive component they shunned them.
I will read slowly your post. I have saved it on the computer to read
carefully.
Yours,
Leopoldo
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
Both Buddhist and Greek "spiritualism" comes from Zoroastrian dualism
- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bio$trategist
BachMozart ReaganQuayle EvrytanoKastorian
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Remorse begets zeal] [Windows is for Bimbos]
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
Sean
<vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com> wrote in message
news:dvtuu6$hn8$3...@reader2.panix.com...
>
> Both Buddhist and Greek "spiritualism" comes from Zoroastrian dualism
>
>
Good point, perhaps.
So where did Zoroastrianism come from?
Where did Daoist dualism come from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism
Zoroastrian areas once stretched from Anatolia as the religion of the Mede
in the western part of the Iranian plateau to the Persian Gulf, and its
followers once numbered in the millions. Its followers today, located
principally in South Asia and Iran, as well as throughout the diaspora,
number much less, but the religion is alive and dynamic.
Many traits of this ancient Iranian religion of Aryan origin, which has
strong similarities before its reformation to the Hinduism of Northern India
and the Viking or Norse religion in Northern Europe, are present in modern
Persians, Azerbaijanis, Kurds, and Eurasian peoples. Many traits of the
Zoroastrian faith are still present in all Iranian peoples' cultures and
traditions from Kurdistan and the Caucausus to Iran and Central Asia.
Plato put Zoroaster in the 64th century BCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism
According to Martin A. Larson, in The Story of Christian Origins (1977),
Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from
the savior cult of Osiris: a rarely discussed view among Mithraic and
Christian scholars but which accounts for the similarities without assuming
a Christian deriviation from Mithraism. He also believes that the Essenes
were Jewish Pythagoreans, whose members not only gave birth to Christianity
as Essenes, but were directly influenced by Zoroastrian doctrine as
Pythagoreans. Mithraism, an established but exclusive sect devoted to social
justice, was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being
disposed of in name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoist#Religious_Taoism_.28Daojiao.29
Philosophical Taoism (Daojia)
Philosophical Taoism does not refer to an actual Taoist school or group of
philosophers. Rather, it is a way of reading Taoist texts and interpreting
them in philosophical terms. While many find this approach to Taoism very
meaningful, it is necessary to remember that the assumptions that it rests
on (e.g., the difference between philosophy and religion) are foreign to
classical Chinese thought, and are unlikely to have been held by individual
Taoist thinkers.
Philosophical Taoism emphasizes various themes found in the Dao De Jing and
Zhuangzi such as "nonaction" (wu wei), emptiness, detachment, receptiveness,
spontaneity, the strength of softness (or flexibility), the relativism of
human values, and the search for a long life. The spirit in which such
things are discussed tends to be more playful than doctrinaire, in keeping
with the tone of the texts themselves. Taoist commentators have been very
impressed by the opening lines of the Dao De Jing, which can be translated:
The way which can be uttered, is not the eternal Way.
The name which can be named, is not the eternal Name.
Angle
triggered by other people's emotions. Emotions being the one part of
reality they have the most trouble accepting.
Sean
"leo" <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143111094.6...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Marcus Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius was born into an aristocratic family in Rome in the year
121. His father died when he was still very young, and he was cared for by
his grandfather, who arranged for him to be educated in Stoic philosophy. As
an adult, he became a trusted friend and advisor to the reigning emperor,
who later adopted him as his son. In the year 161, Marcus Aurelius became
the emperor of Rome.
Before his reign, the empire had enjoyed centuries of relative peace and
prosperity. But in his first year, the Persians tried to regain control of
the eastern provinces. The Persians were crushed, but the returning soldiers
carried back a plague which was spreading from Asia. The disease devastated
the population of the empire, seriously diminishing Rome's resources.
Barbarian tribes then crossed the northern frontier and drove deep into
Roman territory. The emperor personally commanded the empire's defense,
pushing the tribesmen back across the border into Germany. He then spent
much of the remainder of his life battling to force the barbarians into
submission, a task he almost completed before dying of plague in the year
180.
During his reign, Aurelius depended on Stoic philosophy for guidance through
his years of hardship. He applied his philosophical ideals to provide a
style of government that was honest and fair. He recorded his thoughts in a
diary which later became one of the defining works of Stoic philosophy. Much
of this was written while he was camped with his army at the front line
between battles ...
In the life of a man, his time is but a moment, his situation uncertain, his
senses a dim glow, his body in constant decay, his soul washed around by
waves of emotion, his fortune hard to know, and his fame doubtful. All that
is of the body is like a flowing stream, and all that is of the soul is like
dreams and vapors. He is like a soldier on a tour of duty through a foreign
land, and after glory comes oblivion.
Where then can a man find the instructions to guide his steps? There is only
one kind of knowledge that can protect a man's spirit from harm so that it
remains unaffected by either pleasure or pain, and this is the kind of
knowledge comes from an understanding of philosophy.
Philosophy directs us to do nothing without good purpose or with dishonest
intent. It frees us from having to depend on the thoughts or actions of
others. And it helps us to accept everything, good and bad, as having come
from the same ultimate source as ourselves.
Most importantly, only an understanding of philosophy can free us from the
anxiety of death, as being nothing more than a simple dissolving of the
elements from which every living thing is made. If these elements themselves
take no harm from their ceaseless forming and reforming, then why should we
fear the disintegration and release of the elements within ourselves? It is
but nature's way, and in the ways of nature there is no evil to be found.
Think of how long you have been delaying your enlightenment, and how
although the gods continue to grant you opportunities, you continue to take
no advantage of them. It is time now to learn about the nature of the
universe to which you belong, and about the higher nature which is
responsible for your existence, and to understand that you are only in
existence for a limited time. If you do not take advantage of this
opportunity to learn, then the opportunity will be gone, and you will be
gone, and you will never get this chance again.
Either the universe is just a chaotic mass of atoms, randomly forming
intricate structures which dissolve over time and scatter away, or else it
is an ordered system governed by a purposeful higher nature. If the world is
purposeless and chaotic, then why should I continue to suffer through it? Or
why should I care about anything other than how to keep my dust from
returning to the earth? Why should I feel responsible for anything, when
regardless of what I do, death will take me sooner or later? But if there is
order and purpose, then I will show reverence, and I will remain steadfast
in my duties, and I will put my trust in the governing spiritual force.
Keep yourself simple, good, sincere, serious, humble, kind, affectionate,
and thoughtful. Stand up for truth and justice, remain resolute in your
devotion to duty, and accept whatever your fate may be. Always strive your
hardest to be the kind of man that philosophy would have you to be. Respect
the gods and comfort your fellow mortals. Life is short and this earthly
existence has only one reward, the opportunity to be of a pious disposition
and to act in an unselfish way.
As long as you are carrying out your duties, do not be concerned about
whether you are freezing cold or beside a good fire; exhausted from battle
or fresh from sound sleep; hated or loved; in the act of dying, or going
about some other piece of business. For even dying is part of the business
of life, and there too, nothing more is required of us than to see the
moment's work well done.
In everything you do, as a Roman and as a man, resolve yourself to do those
things with dignity and humanity. Avoid being selfish, careless, or
unreasonable. Do not try to impress others or think of yourself too highly.
And do not let your thoughts turn to unhappiness. See how few things a man
needs to master for his days to be peaceful and holy. He has but to follow
this advice and the gods will ask for nothing more.
The happiness of your life depends on the quality of your thoughts. So guard
your thoughts and take care not to entertain any notions that are unsuitable
to virtue or reason.
http://www.principlesofexistence.net/ancient_greek_philosophy.html
Sean
"Angle" <butifyouloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143127339....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Of course many Stoics while Stoic in relation to events seem to get
> triggered by other people's emotions. Emotions being the one part of
> reality they have the most trouble accepting.
They? Ha, they should do better shouldn't they! ;-))
I was wondering ..... Is there a valid co-relation in the value of an ideal
or a principle, and humans who attempt to practice it yet fail to master it
at all times?
iow, does one have any impact on the other. or are they mutually exclusive?
sacs...@rsvl.net
I would think that striving for an ideal would get us closer it. But
it's kind of like the walk of a drunken man with the best route
changing whenever we take stock of the situation or new evidence
presents itself (such as bumping into a wall). I wouldn't think an
ideal changes (it seems contradictory) but rather its relative
importance does (that ally is looking like a very comfortable place to
sleep it off).
Sean
<sacs...@rsvl.net> wrote in message
news:1143156787.2...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
odd analogy, but a funny one. :-)
Have you ever noticed that 99/100 times a really bad drunk will always find
the gutter when walking down the footpath?
sacs...@rsvl.net
Yep, I've noticed it's more constraining and easier to follow.
Brian Fletcher
"Sean" <santimva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8q-dnVvbTtusv77Z...@inspired.net.au...
Time Lords.
In other words, If I slip backwards, the pain is far greater than before I
knew the principle.
I believe this principle is known as "instant karma".
During such "rare" !!! ...events, when the size 16 boot lands, (and because
I'm in that 'time frame'), I usually scream rare obscenities, but as I'm now
"MUCH" more advanced than I used to be, I find myself laughing
simultainiously.
BOfL
Sean
"Brian Fletcher" <bria...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:7ZHUf.15091$dy4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
The joy of pain speak of you I hear. mmmmm Luke, with you is indeed the
force, mmmm.
Size 16 Boot Force -- LOL
Love OB1
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism
Wikipedia pages on religious issues are mostly complete rubbish,
reflecting only the viewpoint of the weenie who fought hardest in the
edit wars. Sorry, but treat everything in these as suspect.
> According to Martin A. Larson, in The Story of Christian Origins (1977),
> Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from
> the savior cult of Osiris: a rarely discussed view among Mithraic and
> Christian scholars but which accounts for the similarities without assuming
> a Christian deriviation from Mithraism.
It seems hardly necessary to point out that this is 'rarely discussed'
because it is complete tosh. Nothing whatever links any of these three
groups together.
> He also believes that the Essenes
> were Jewish Pythagoreans, whose members not only gave birth to Christianity
> as Essenes, but were directly influenced by Zoroastrian doctrine as
> Pythagoreans.
It would be better if something resembling evidence were offered.
Again there is none.
> Mithraism, an established but exclusive sect devoted to social
> justice, was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being
> disposed of in name.
Again, this is complete fiction.
For all the ancient texts which mention Mithras, see this:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras
Note the complete absence of all the above from the ancient sources.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Sean
<roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1143230671....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Sean wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism
>
> Wikipedia pages on religious issues are mostly complete rubbish,
> reflecting only the viewpoint of the weenie who fought hardest in the
> edit wars. Sorry, but treat everything in these as suspect.
>
Thanks but I agree with that already. What I do like about wiki is that it
often presents alternative views on the same page, offers reasonable links
to explore more, and tends to trigger a more open minded view of variations
to one's already help opinion.
Of course, it is as suspect as anything else.
>> According to Martin A. Larson, in The Story of Christian Origins (1977),
>> Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from
>> the savior cult of Osiris: a rarely discussed view among Mithraic and
>> Christian scholars but which accounts for the similarities without
>> assuming
>> a Christian deriviation from Mithraism.
>
> It seems hardly necessary to point out that this is 'rarely discussed'
> because it is complete tosh. Nothing whatever links any of these three
> groups together.
>
I guess a Christian would say the same thing about Buddhism and
Christianity. Still there are obvious links in their dogma .... that may not
necessarily mean that were traceble or verifiable extant sources of one to
the other.
There are also connects with Osiris and Christianity. It's the meaning fo
the word "derived" that would be hard if not impossible to prove to
everyone's satisfaction. So I think it depends on where one is looking from
as far as connects are concerned.
>> He also believes that the Essenes
>> were Jewish Pythagoreans, whose members not only gave birth to
>> Christianity
>> as Essenes, but were directly influenced by Zoroastrian doctrine as
>> Pythagoreans.
>
> It would be better if something resembling evidence were offered.
> Again there is none.
>
Well of course it would be better. If there was some clear documentation of
Pythagoras and his experiemnts, thoughts and way of life, and his supposed
journeys to Egypt and the East before he was 40 odd, well yeah it would be
better. But an absence of evidence does not prove a connection does not
exist.
http://www.essene.com/Church/EsseneChronology.htm
http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/E/ESSENES/ a negative opinion re
pyhtagoras
http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/secret_teachings_of_all_ages/the_life_and_philosophy_of_pythagoras.htm
The teachings of Pythagoras indicate that he was thoroughly conversant with
the precepts of Oriental and Occidental esotericism. He traveled among the
Jews and was instructed by the Rabbins concerning the secret traditions of
Moses, the lawgiver of Israel. Later the School of the Essenes was conducted
chiefly for the purpose of interpreting the Pythagorean symbols. Pythagoras
was initiated into the Egyptian, Babylonian, and Chaldean Mysteries.
Although it is believed by some that he was a disciple of Zoroaster, it is
doubtful whether his instructor of that name was the God-man now revered by
the Parsees. While accounts of his travels differ, historians agree that he
visited many countries and studied at the feet of many masters.
http://www.thenazareneway.com/nazarene_or_nazareth.htm
While "vulgar" people were not permitted access to Mount Carmel, it was a
haven for holy pilgrims from various countries. In The Life of Pythagoras
written in the 2nd century by Jamblichus, we learn that the great sage
Pythagoras, as a young seeker, visited the Essene sanctuary atop Mount
Carmel:
"In Phoenicia he [Pythagoras] conversed with the prophets who were
descendants of Moses.... After gaining all he could from the Phoenician
mysteries, he found that they had originated from the sacred rites of Egypt.
This led him to... Egypt. Following the advice of his teacher Thales, he
left... through the agency of some Egyptian sailors, and landed on the coast
under Mount Carmel."
>> Mithraism, an established but exclusive sect devoted to social
>> justice, was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being
>> disposed of in name.
>
> Again, this is complete fiction.
>
> For all the ancient texts which mention Mithras, see this:
>
> http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras
>
> Note the complete absence of all the above from the ancient sources.
>
> All the best,
>
> Roger Pearse
>
Thanks for the link. Seek and thee shalt find, knock and the door shall be
opened unto thee. <smile> cheers
James Hajicek
Stoicism's influence on Christianity
...
The appeal of Stoicism to Christianity may be due to the
fact that Stoicism is largely based on Semitic and not Greek
philosophy, and so perhaps there is a more natural
compatibility with the Jewish roots of Christianity.
Perhaps that is true. Nevertheless, caution is required.
During the time of Jesus of Nazareth, there were three Jewish sects,
the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes.
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote:
Life of Flavius Josephus
Book I, Chapter I, Section 2
2. ... And when I was about sixteen years old, I had a
mind to make trial of the several sects that were among us.
These sects are three:- The first is that of the Pharisees,
the second that of the Sadducees, and the third that of the
Essens, as we have frequently told you; for I thought that
by this means I might choose the best, if I were once
acquainted with them all; so I contented myself with hard
fare, and underwent great difficulties, and went through
them all. ... So when I had accomplished my desires, I
returned back to the city, being now nineteen years old, and
began to conduct myself according to the rules of the sect
--> of the Pharisees, which is of kin to the sect of the Stoics,
as the Greeks call them.
Josephus was born in about 37 AD. He was of a priestly family, and so
was a Levite. He studied with all three of the major Jewish sects,
but finally settled on the Pharisees as his personal religion.
John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth were strongly opposed to the
Pharisees and Sadducees, Matthew 3:7, 16:6,12, 23:15, Mark 7:5-6.
The doctrines of Jesus were closer to the Essenes than to the
Pharisees. However, by modern standards, the Essenes were probably
also stoics.
- James