Discussion about this post

User's avatar
JM Auron's avatar

As a Buddhist with a deep interest in Stoicism, I was interested to read your ideas on this, and hope you mind my own reflections on the topic.

I think that there are a number of reasons for the decline of interest in Buddhism in the West.

The primary reason, as I see it, is this: Westerners just don't want to accept the first noble truth, the truth of suffering. Westerners want to feel good. That's not what the Dharma is. I think many Westerners don't want to think about the hard truths of karma and rebirth, with the concomitant requirement for a very highly ethical lifestyle.

Beyond that, on a more practical level, is the emphasis on Tibetan and Zen Buddhism; now, I have nothing but regard for those who can follow these paths, but they are daunting. The levels of commitment required, the difficulty of the practices, the time required to see progress, and the cultural preconceptions make adopting these paths very challenging.

Tibetan Buddhism, as taught in the west, wasn't, as I understand it, the path of the average Tibetan—it was the path of monks, and advanced monks at that. Tibetan farmers and nomads recited the Mani mantra, gave offerings, prayed—it was a devotional path. In the west, though, there has been an emphasis on very advanced practices being taught to people without the necessary grounding. Dzogchen is fascinating, but how many can really attain that level? Especially living as householders in the West?

So with Zen—it was always an elite path in East Asia, where most ordinary people practiced devotional Pure Land.

Devotion, though, is hard for Westerners. Westerners, too often, are fleeing Christianity and see anything similar as unattractive.

Additionally, the watering down of Buddhism, the turning of Buddhist teachings into fairly banal psychological self help has lessened impact. Why be a Buddhist to get feel good platitudes? The level of political orthodoxy required in most Western Buddhist groups has also driven people out.

Now, Stoicism has become badly debased, too. The things I see attributed to Epictetus and Marcus chill my blood, though those great men would have said, "It's none of my affair." But Stoicism, even in a serious, pure form, does not require the commitment to something transcendent that's required by the Dharma. One can take some Stoic maxims, work on them, and see benefit.

I hope that Buddhism does again spread in the west; I think it's a valuable way to live, and a way out of the wheel of birth and death. But I do believe that, for that to happen, the more practical, devotional sides of the Dharma need to become more widely known.

Finally, I don't see any inherent conflict between Buddhism and Stoicism; while Buddhism is my core commitment, I find Stoicism a very practical help in my daily life, as do, I'm sure, many others.

In these times, anything that can help us to live a more ethical life is to be applauded and cultivated.

Expand full comment
Matthias E's avatar

My way was from buddhist to Stoic and now Epicurean.

The main reason is recognizing the modern scientific worldview.

When I wanted to go deeper in buddhist practice everyone said me=> you must believe in karma&reincarnation, Secular buddhism is buddhism light…., but ok „deep/traditional“ buddhism is just magical thinking/ believing imo comparing with modern scientific knowledge…

The same with the Stoics but not so hard and many subjects can be good interpretated in modern terms and views ( laws of nature, dark energy and big bang / big bounce/crunch) and more diverse ethical advices technics and possibilities for self improvement aside of only meditation.

And Epicureanism is like „follow the science“ but without the failures of scientism and with ethics based in neurology ( values from pleasure/pain ) + the virtues from Stoicism but for the right reason ( not virtue for its own sake) and seeing the territory instead of confusing the map ( notions, laws) with the territory.

Maybe Naturalism / Epicureanism will be the next hype ?😄 But maybe it would be too normal for a modern mind to call or identify with an ancient path.

Expand full comment
45 more comments...

No posts