I practice Buddhism/Stoicism, and was about to write something, but then deleted it in an attempt to practice non-divisive speech, which is a practice I find both useful and challenging. 🙂
But I will say that my choice to get more politically involved is what drew me a bit more toward the Stoic side of things.
Would not Buddhism emphasize detachment from political outcomes, especially given their ebb and flow? Sure, there are politically active Buddhists out there in east Asia, but the emphasis of the philosophy isn't explicitly political. It was always about having equanimity despite whatever happens around or to you, to rise above the fray.
I suspect this is an American/Anglosphere Buddhist phenomena, where the political bent is imposed by the practitioners themselves. It may be due in part to the compassion aspect of Buddhism attracting those high in Jonathan Haidt's care/harm value, which leans towards progressive politics. Perhaps it is also due to the legacy of the Beatniks and Hippies: although Kerouac and company were cool, they were also distinctly counterculture.
I'm seeing this conundrum happening in Kemetic circles too: which candidate exemplifies Ma'at the most? But I also observed it play out in other religions: Reform versus Orthodox Judaism, conservative versus progressive Christian churches, etc. Both sides could list policy and/or personality factors to prefer either as more virtuous (relative to their opponent, at least!). Yet this whole exercise is tricky because ancient religions and philosophies did not have to contend with modern mass representative democracy and universal suffrage, and the candidates and dynamics thereof, so trying to turn personal virtue into broader political judgement is going to be an imperfect fit and biased by one's existing political bent.
Well put. Just got back from covering the Buddha trail which is easier than going the Buddha path to become a Bodhisatva. Last few years I have been seriously looking at Stoicism. Though I would like to work towards becoming a Bodhisatva the latter is easier to achieve because of the simplicity. The most important being “What is under our control” & in Buddhism it’s “Compassion” & the practice of meditation which is not for the weak of Heart. That’s the reason why Stoicism is cool though I don’t like the word as it downgrades the Philosophy & it’s going to get “cooler” after Gladiator 102.
Excellent article. Zen Buddhism (and I’m assuming Buddhism as a whole) definitely has a marketing problem. Probably because Zen is so anti-proselytization. But we need a little marketing in the West since it isn’t the default religion.
Admittedly I don’t know much about stoicism, but I’m guessing Zen is at a disadvantage because it requires a daily practice of sitting still for 15-60 minutes a day. That’s not easy for the Tik Tok generation to do.
In the later part of the 20th century there were lots of exciting books being published about Buddhism. This was a major marketing medium. In this century the Buddhist books have tended to have a me-too character; they don't conjure the excitement of the earlier books.
Stoicism - properly done - also requires daily practice.
Another great commentary. The Modes suggest that different genders, age-grades, and personalities will be persuaded by different arguments. Substantive persuasion leads to voting. Voting leads to winners and losers. Persuasive arguments will be deployed and redeployed through time as the political wheel turns. The historical flexing of two Great Houses of political and economic dogma should be fascinating and educational to Pyrrhonists (imho) but hardly justify the "conspicuous emoting" of organized American Buddhism. "Who suffered worst? Let me count the ways" ... no wonder young people would prefer the dogmatic ambiguity of Stoic Virtue ... a dogma that can be trimmed to suit current events, as it was in Rome's day, and can at least boast the advantage of courageous engagement with life's challenges. As Jonathan Haidt has outlined, mental dwelling on negative emotions is exactly what therapists DON'T recommend when they treat patients. Cultivating or savoring negative emotions is a recipe for poor mental health. And, as Fate would have it, stats on mental illness are not evenly distributed across the population. That being said, mercy to all. The wheel turns. "Your dogma" will eventually "win."
Thank you for writing this, it's something I noticed too!! I kept seeing Buddhists post about holding space for fear, anger, and devastation, and I was wondering about joy and celebration and if that was welcome. It's certainly okay to feel fear and anger, but it strikes me that the root of those feelings is clinging to one's own perception of what is right rather than accepting that all things change and getting curious about why it changed in the way it did.
Today on Facebook a high profile Buddhist responded to my comments that why do so few people recognize how awful Biden was? The answer was long but centered around Biden being a 'stablizing force' in the world. Stablizing? 40,000 murdered in Gaza with Biden's money, 2000 Ukrainians killed everyday and the refusal of diplomacy is stable?
It's not that I have faith in Trump but surely we can agree Biden was objectively evil. And Harris, following evil is likewise evil.
There's no way evil is cool. I don't even really get it. If American Zen was ever cool those days are long gone, IMHO.
the signature of surface dwelling fish is they get tossed around in storms. Why worry about other peoples "lack of virtue" if you don't really understand yourself.
I practice Buddhism/Stoicism, and was about to write something, but then deleted it in an attempt to practice non-divisive speech, which is a practice I find both useful and challenging. 🙂
But I will say that my choice to get more politically involved is what drew me a bit more toward the Stoic side of things.
Would not Buddhism emphasize detachment from political outcomes, especially given their ebb and flow? Sure, there are politically active Buddhists out there in east Asia, but the emphasis of the philosophy isn't explicitly political. It was always about having equanimity despite whatever happens around or to you, to rise above the fray.
I suspect this is an American/Anglosphere Buddhist phenomena, where the political bent is imposed by the practitioners themselves. It may be due in part to the compassion aspect of Buddhism attracting those high in Jonathan Haidt's care/harm value, which leans towards progressive politics. Perhaps it is also due to the legacy of the Beatniks and Hippies: although Kerouac and company were cool, they were also distinctly counterculture.
I'm seeing this conundrum happening in Kemetic circles too: which candidate exemplifies Ma'at the most? But I also observed it play out in other religions: Reform versus Orthodox Judaism, conservative versus progressive Christian churches, etc. Both sides could list policy and/or personality factors to prefer either as more virtuous (relative to their opponent, at least!). Yet this whole exercise is tricky because ancient religions and philosophies did not have to contend with modern mass representative democracy and universal suffrage, and the candidates and dynamics thereof, so trying to turn personal virtue into broader political judgement is going to be an imperfect fit and biased by one's existing political bent.
Well put. Just got back from covering the Buddha trail which is easier than going the Buddha path to become a Bodhisatva. Last few years I have been seriously looking at Stoicism. Though I would like to work towards becoming a Bodhisatva the latter is easier to achieve because of the simplicity. The most important being “What is under our control” & in Buddhism it’s “Compassion” & the practice of meditation which is not for the weak of Heart. That’s the reason why Stoicism is cool though I don’t like the word as it downgrades the Philosophy & it’s going to get “cooler” after Gladiator 102.
Excellent article. Zen Buddhism (and I’m assuming Buddhism as a whole) definitely has a marketing problem. Probably because Zen is so anti-proselytization. But we need a little marketing in the West since it isn’t the default religion.
Admittedly I don’t know much about stoicism, but I’m guessing Zen is at a disadvantage because it requires a daily practice of sitting still for 15-60 minutes a day. That’s not easy for the Tik Tok generation to do.
In the later part of the 20th century there were lots of exciting books being published about Buddhism. This was a major marketing medium. In this century the Buddhist books have tended to have a me-too character; they don't conjure the excitement of the earlier books.
Stoicism - properly done - also requires daily practice.
Another great commentary. The Modes suggest that different genders, age-grades, and personalities will be persuaded by different arguments. Substantive persuasion leads to voting. Voting leads to winners and losers. Persuasive arguments will be deployed and redeployed through time as the political wheel turns. The historical flexing of two Great Houses of political and economic dogma should be fascinating and educational to Pyrrhonists (imho) but hardly justify the "conspicuous emoting" of organized American Buddhism. "Who suffered worst? Let me count the ways" ... no wonder young people would prefer the dogmatic ambiguity of Stoic Virtue ... a dogma that can be trimmed to suit current events, as it was in Rome's day, and can at least boast the advantage of courageous engagement with life's challenges. As Jonathan Haidt has outlined, mental dwelling on negative emotions is exactly what therapists DON'T recommend when they treat patients. Cultivating or savoring negative emotions is a recipe for poor mental health. And, as Fate would have it, stats on mental illness are not evenly distributed across the population. That being said, mercy to all. The wheel turns. "Your dogma" will eventually "win."
Thank you for writing this, it's something I noticed too!! I kept seeing Buddhists post about holding space for fear, anger, and devastation, and I was wondering about joy and celebration and if that was welcome. It's certainly okay to feel fear and anger, but it strikes me that the root of those feelings is clinging to one's own perception of what is right rather than accepting that all things change and getting curious about why it changed in the way it did.
Today on Facebook a high profile Buddhist responded to my comments that why do so few people recognize how awful Biden was? The answer was long but centered around Biden being a 'stablizing force' in the world. Stablizing? 40,000 murdered in Gaza with Biden's money, 2000 Ukrainians killed everyday and the refusal of diplomacy is stable?
It's not that I have faith in Trump but surely we can agree Biden was objectively evil. And Harris, following evil is likewise evil.
There's no way evil is cool. I don't even really get it. If American Zen was ever cool those days are long gone, IMHO.
Mu
the signature of surface dwelling fish is they get tossed around in storms. Why worry about other peoples "lack of virtue" if you don't really understand yourself.