2022 Epicurus vs Buddhism Compare and Contrast Thread

    First, the disclaimer:

    I have great hesitation even posting in this thread. This should probably be 12 different threads. There is so much here to take on. Let me start with - like it or not - there are very many understandings of Buddhism, many of which directly contradict each other, and we have NO written version of what the Buddha said. We all know how difficult it is to make sense of a philosophy that has been written down, especially over years by different authors, passing through translations by different peeps in history, through various languages old and modern - now just imagine that with no certain starting point. At all. They started writing the Buddha's words down probably around 3-400 years after the Buddha had died and one could argue they are essentially still adding to the canon - there is no "revealed" or "authentic" truth / version by a god or an Epicurus or other religious leader or philosopher (of course various sects claim various parts of the canon as authoritative).

    Now I'm sure some or many concepts actually presented by the Buddha managed to be maintained with some degree of correctness, and still exist in the writings we have. But it's impossible to nail this down. Again - like it or not, this is what we got.

    The Buddhist common disclaimer is "oh, people at that time had great memory capabilities and they were verbally able to pass down the teachings reliably". Really? I'm calling baloney on that. Some Buddhists will also often say that this flexibility is by design of the Buddha and this is valuable, that there is no determinate path. Each person can fashion a "raft" to get to the other side of the proverbial river, and the Buddha's teachings can help, but you have to fashion your own raft. In Zen they would say the Buddha was like pointing a finger at the moon. Don't get hung up on the finger and keep looking at it - the point is the moon (and of course what the "goal" is suggested by this moon is itself another long topic).

    Quote from Cassius

    Don't people who are attracted to it have "some" idea of the basic teachings before they dive into the details? What are those basic attractions that get people started down that path in the first place?

    Generally, modern converts to some form of Buddhism encounter one or another flavor of Buddhism (either one of the traditional/regional versions or a more modern variant, or some combination) and they learn their "basics" there.

    Often people then dabble in other versions they hear about, though some folks stick with their original.

    Many peeps discover "Mindfulness", then find out it came from Buddhism and other ancient Indian traditions and they look up local Buddhist groups in their town and off they go to meditate there.

    It's a smorgasbord out there, and one can pick and choose. Today of course we have broad access to all different types of Buddhism in a way that was never even possible a couple of hundred years ago. While there are many shared ideas among different versions and some that certain groups argue are "core" to all Buddhism or most, in reality the ideas criss-cross in complicated ways, and there are also basic, fundamental, radical differences between many of the "Buddhisms".

    Quote from Cassius

    So if possible I'd like us to work on a thread for "the rest of us" - Epicureans in particular, of course, who want to get an initial grasp of what is fairly referrable to as generic Buddhism from a Western perspective. That way we can hopefully get a grasp on at least a couple of core concepts.

    I think going after some core concepts is a good idea. My today is really busy, so I apologize I'm going to step away now, after having dumped this out here. I'll try to post some more of my thoughts soon regarding specific concepts, but I just wanted to first throw out this well worn wet blanket in an attempt to maybe cool the flames just a tidge and encourage more focus. "Buddhism" is a bugger to pin down. It's like one of the agents in the Matrix movie. They move fast and they morph. Hard to land a bullet on them.

    Quote from Don

    But, in the *ultimate* analysis, we are simply momentary aggregates of atoms moving in the void.

    I say much the same thing pretty often, but even here I would be be careful that the word "ultimate" invests that perspective with something more than it probably deserves. I guess what we're really referring to is something like either "microscopic" (figuratively) or "eternal" (more literally) perspectives. From a strong enough microscopic ("vision") perspective, all we see if we look through the instrument is something like atoms and void. From a "time" perspective, if we could stand back and look to see what it is (if anything) that exists unchanged over an eternity, all we see is matter and void.


    But do the perspectives of " time" and "vision" really deserve the deference of being called "ultimate?" I think what most of us are implying when we say "ultimate" is something like "the most important perspective of importance." And if we're using that as the definition, then indeed the most important perspective of significance of importance is a matter of importance "to us" and that's a lot more complicated than matters and void. That's "our" world of qualities and events and accidents and things that rise to the "shores of light" in our level of experience.

    Quote from Kalosyni

    Yes, thank you Cassius! I will carry on with my Epicurean studies

    LOL. That makes it sound like I am rapping the knuckles of a student in grammar school ;)


    Quote from Don

    Well summarized! And, interestingly enough, there are some/many who would unfortunately describe Epicurean philosophy the same way: the removal of pain is the goal.

    And unfortunately at this point in world history that "some/many" is probably the vast majority of people who've been exposed to Epicurean through the "orthodox" academic path.


    I'm of course sensitive to not wanting us to be perceived as a "cult" or to accusations that this forum is dedicated to anything less than "totally free inquiry." But I think that it's almost a principal of physics to observe that the world doesn't operate in all the ways that we might like it to. Maybe we should look for an analogy to the hooks of atoms, or something else in Epicurean physics, that explains how "bodies" come into being at all, and that the universe doesn't remain a totally formless soup.


    Unless we accept that there are natural principals of attraction and repulsion, and that some people will choose some paths and others will choose other paths, then we would neither have bodies and ultimately humans forming from the atoms and the void, nor would we ever have any organized patterns of thought that we could define as Epicurean or Stoic or Buddhist or anything else. The point being that the development and following of basic key principles should not be viewed as a bad thing, but as an example of how the glue of the universe works to hold anything and everything together.

    In contrast to the ambiguity I see everywhere in discussions of Buddhism, I think it's relatively easy to construct a list of simple points that describe the Epicurean approach to life. I think we can use Thomas Jefferson as an illustration of someone who saw the same things, and we can build on one of his letters to John Adams to show an description of the sequence. I will put the full cite at the bottom:


    1. ‘I feel: therefore I exist.’
    2. I feel bodies which are not myself: there are other existencies then. I call them matter.
    3. I feel them changing place. This gives me motion.
    4. Where there is an absence of matter, I call it void, or nothing, or immaterial space.
    5. On the basis of sensation, of matter and motion, we may erect the fabric of all the certainties we can have or need.
    6. I can conceive thought to be an action of a particular organization of matter, formed for that purpose by it’s creator, as well as that attraction in an action of matter, or magnetism of loadstone. When he who denies to the Creator the power of endowing matter with the mode of action called thinking shall shew how he could endow the Sun with the mode of action called attraction, which reins the planets in the tract of their orbits, or how an absence of matter can have a will, and, by that will, put matter into motion, then the materialist may be lawfully required to explain the process by which matter exercises the faculty of thinking.
    7. When once we quit the basis of sensation, all is in the wind. To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise.

      To That I Would Add For Purpose of This Discussion:
    8. It is a certainty that I am not going to be here very long. I am going to die and forever cease to exist much more quickly than I would like.
    9. It is a certainty that Nature gives us nothing other than pleasure and pain as the ultimate foundation of all choice and decision making.
    10. Since I am going to be here for only a short time, I want to experience as much pleasure, and as little pain, as possible.
    11. I consider it to be a certainty that it takes effort to remain alive, and effort means pain, and so I am ready and willing to accept some amount of pain as the price for achieving pleasure.
    12. Therefore I am attracted to philosophies and religions and ways of ordering life that target the promotion of pleasure in my life.
    13. And I am also repelled by philosophies and religions and ways of life that target anything other than the promotion of pleasure in my life.
    14. And finally for purposes of this exercise, I consider pleasure to be a feeling that is unmistakable, so when someone tries to tell me that I should pursue a definition of pleasure that doesn't feel pleasurable to me, I run the other direction.
    15. Thus I am an Epicurean and not a Buddhist.



    Quote

    Jefferson to John Adams, August 15, 1820:   (Full version at Founders.gov)

    …. But enough of criticism: let me turn to your puzzling letter of May 12. on matter, spirit, motion etc. It’s crowd of scepticisms kept me from sleep. I read it, and laid it down: read it, and laid it down, again and again: and to give rest to my mind, I was obliged to recur ultimately to my habitual anodyne, ‘I feel: therefore I exist.’ I feel bodies which are not myself: there are other existencies then. I call them matter. I feel them changing place. This gives me motion. Where there is an absence of matter, I call it void, or nothing, or immaterial space. On the basis of sensation, of matter and motion, we may erect the fabric of all the certainties we can have or need. I can conceive thought to be an action of a particular organisation of matter, formed for that purpose by it’s creator, as well as that attraction in an action of matter, or magnetism of loadstone. When he who denies to the Creator the power of endowing matter with the mode of action called thinking shall shew how he could endow the Sun with the mode of action called attraction, which reins the planets in the tract of their orbits, or how an absence of matter can have a will, and, by that will, put matter into motion, then the materialist may be lawfully required to explain the process by which matter exercises the faculty of thinking. When once we quit the basis of sensation, all is in the wind. To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart.

    Quote from Cassius

    It is a certainty that Nature gives us nothing other than pleasure and pain as the ultimate foundation of all choice and decision making.
    Since I am going to be here for only a short time, I want to experience as much pleasure, and as little pain, as possible.
    I consider it to be a certainty that it takes effort to remain alive, and effort means pain, and so I am ready and willing to accept some amount of pain as the price for achieving pleasure.

    I think this generally makes sense for me, but yet there are times where I feel physical discomforts and then it becomes a matter of surviving the pain/discomfort. Which brings up the idea that Epicureanism may work best for people with a strong and healthy physical constitution. Unless there is some allowance for the pleasure of release from pain, some people will be left out. Also, sometimes pain or the fear of pain is a greater motivator, and if we can endure a little bit of pain now, to make sure that we don't have greater pain in the future, then that makes sense.

    Quote from Kalosyni

    Which brings up the idea that Epicureanism may work best for people with a strong and healthy physical constitution

    According to DeWitt (and some ancient sources?), Epicurus himself suffered from ill health and (according to DeWitt) had to to taken back and forth from home to the Garden in a 3-wheeled cart/chair.

    Quote from Kalosyni

    Unless there is some allowance for the pleasure of release from pain

    I think that's supposed to be the intent of the last two lines of the Tetrapharmakos:

    Quote

    On the one hand, the good [pleasure] is easily obtained;

    On the other, the terrible (pain) is easily endured.

    But the last line has to be understood to include chronic pain in that, even then, some pleasure can be "easily" found if one looks for it and also remembers past pleasures.

    Quote

    PD04: Pain does not last continuously in the flesh; instead, the sharpest pain lasts the shortest time, a pain that exceeds bodily pleasure lasts only a few days, and diseases that last a long time involve delights that exceed their pains

    Today I've been using this one myself!


    And then there's his letter to Idomeneus:

    Quote

    On this blissful day, which is also the last of my life, I write this to you. My continual sufferings from strangury and dysentery are so great that nothing could augment them; but over against them all I set gladness of mind at the remembrance of our past conversations....

    "Was Epicurus a Buddhist? An Examination and Critique of the Theories of Negative Happiness in Buddha and Epicurus"
    Comparisons between western and eastern philosophies are uncommon and this, among other things, hinders global philosophical discourse. Thus, in this essay I…
    www.academia.edu

    Just found this paper at Academia.edu: Was Epicurus a Buddhist?

    Haven't read it but the title was intriguing enough to post here. Don't know anything about the author's credentials.

    Thanks for the post Don , intriguing title!


    Unfortunately this author saddles Epicurus with preaching the absence of pain, and his overall conclusion is that one needs a Platonic or religious world view for true happiness.

    Quote from Godfrey

    Unfortunately this author saddles Epicurus with preaching the absence of pain, and his overall conclusion is that one needs a Platonic or religious world view for true happiness

    I figured as much. At least it shows what we continue to be up against. (Insert sad trombone here)

    I will attempt to take Cassius up on his request for an epitome of Buddhist teachings; assuming here that the Theravada school represents them best, and with the caveat that I have not studied these teachings for a number of years.


    Let's pretend that what follows is the voice of a believer;


    1. In spite of appearances, I am convinced after meditating deeply that I have no 'self'. ['No self' = anatta or no atta, Hindu atman]


    2. Having no self, "I" shall not reincarnate; neither shall "I" die.


    3. But something of me shall be reborn or passed on, the way the heat from one candle passes on to ignite a second candle.


    4. I perceive other sentient beings; animals, and other humans, and also gods. I conclude that these also have no 'self'.


    5. These, too, shall experience rebirth; even the gods are part of this cycle.


    6. The condition of this cycle, from the lowliest cockroach to the wisest among gods, is the condition of suffering.


    7. The way to end the cycle is to end suffering.


    8. That part of me which has been reborn in this life cannot have ended suffering, else it should not have been reborn.


    9. Therefore suffering leaves traces, a residue (kamma) and to end suffering I must erase the residue of suffering of my cosmic past.


    10. If I can accomplish this, I will no longer be bound to the cycle: I will not be reborn, but will have achieved nibbana, a complete quenching of suffering.


    11. This can only be achieved in a human rebirth; the lower animals have no ability to look beyond their immediate suffering, and as for the gods, they are too caught up in palliative pleasures to see the need to break the cycle.


    12. To break the cycle is immensely difficult. It cannot be done in one life, but only by successive rebirths working toward the goal.


    13. For most people it might not be possible at all---except that my master the Buddha has found the way.


    14. He is not a god, nor a savior; he is only a guide. He attained nibbana, and tarried here long enough to show others the way, crying always, like a ferryman, "anyone for the other shore?"


    15. I wish to end the cycle for myself; therefore, I am a Buddhist.


    I take refuge in the Buddha [the awakened], the Dhamma [his teachings], and the Sangha [the body of his enlightened followers].


    I will avoid the three fetters of 1. Belief in self, 2. Doubt, and 3. Attachment to rites and rituals.


    I will avoid the three poisons of 1. Greed, 2. Ignorance, and 3. Hatred


    I will follow the Noble Eightfold Path, of;


    1. Right View

    2. Right Intention

    3. Right Speech

    4. Right action

    5. Right livelihood

    6. Right effort

    7. Right concentration

    8. Right mindfulness


    --------------


    I can easily recommend Huston Smith's book on the World's Religions to anyone who wishes to know more, and I am happy to be corrected on any of the above points.

    In view of the above list, you will apprehend the impossibility of removing rebirth, kamma [karma] or nibbana [nirvana] from Buddhism. They are integral. There are those in the secular community who keep the name of Buddhism for its ethics, or for its mindfulness, or for its psychology---but whatever it is that remains, it is not Buddhism.

    That seems to be a solid epitome to me! Well done!

    Quote from Joshua

    as for the gods, they are too caught up in palliative pleasures to see the need to break the cycle

    This always intrigued me about the Buddhist gods on the wheel of samsara: They're so blissed out and pleasure-filled, they can't conceive of not being reborn as a god (to greatly simplify the situation).

    Which got me thinking: How does this apply to the Epicurean gods? They are supposedly experiencing pleasure all the time. Is that correct? Isn't this just another form of "harps in heaven"? Would a blissful, pleasure-filled eternity get old? If every variety of pleasure could be experienced eventually in infinite time by an incorruptible being/spirit/entity/god, wouldn't pleasure get old? Is that one reason we don't need an infinite life to experience the most pleasurable life? :/

    I bring this up because I also just recently finished all four seasons of The Good Place, and this was exactly the dilemma the characters faced when redesigning the Good Place. All the "people" there were numb, lethargic etc because they had experienced *everything* they had ever wanted to do. Now, the biggest excitement was milkshakes (according to Hypatia). The main characters decided it was human life's mortality that gave life meaning. So, in the redesign of the Good Place, they decided to provide an exit. When you've experienced everything you could ever want, you could decide to leave the Good Place for good and "return your essence to the universe," i.e., cease to exist. Which struck me as almost Epicurean in the end. Your atoms will eventually get recycled for other purposes by the cosmos. That's not an afterlife btw, just the natural process to be clear.

    Thinking out loud here and open to thoughts.

    "The Good Place" is indeed a worthwhile show, Don, and your question a good one!


    I can give no answer to this objection: Epicurus assures us of the existence of his gods, but for me they are symbols merely; something imagined, and imaginary--but pedagogically useful, and to be kept, as it were, "before the eyes". ;)

    Joshua thank you for that epitome. That distillation is truly needed. As you said…these articles (karma, rebirth and nirvana) are integral to Buddhism, without them what would be left isn’t Buddhism. That’s pretty much it…I see this as the main point…. Without these very specific concepts, Buddhism isn’t Buddhism and we can’t even discuss this in any meaningful way, and frankly I’m not sure how a Buddhist could come to terms with this NOT being the case. If we can’t nail down some “consistency” within a tradition it would be impossible to both criticize it or practice it if the person was a devotee.

    There are multiple sects of Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc. that have differing opinions about certain articles of faith and certain formulas and certain disciplic successions…but there has to be very “core” concepts that cannot be removed from the faiths…otherwise we would never be able to say this faith is “Christianity” and this faith is “Islam” in generic terms….if the articles are so different from each other as they are for the position of Jesus in Islam and Christianity , then the differences qualify them to be completely different religions.


    It is very obvious that Buddhism in general in a very similar way, except for secular Buddhists who might only be so in name only, all share these these very specific concepts in some way. There may be differing opinions among schools or sects, but if we can’t pin down some consistent teachings taught by a historical Gautama Buddha that are recognized among ALL Buddhists regardless of sect, then I’m not sure any comparison or discussion is possible. “Buddhism” would be a completely meaningless and nebulous term.


    Which I personally don’t believe is true.

    Quote from Don

    Would a blissful, pleasure-filled eternity get old? If every variety of pleasure could be experienced eventually in infinite time by an incorruptible being/spirit/entity/god, wouldn't pleasure get old? Is that one reason we don't need an infinite life to experience the most pleasurable life?


    I am not going to be able to offer it in this post, but this is where I think there is one of those "logical" answers which may not be satisfactory to everyone. What we perceive as boredom may be in fact be a deficiency in us (such as our aging) that a more highly evolved being would also have been able to dispose of, just as with other sources of pain.


    Not gonna represent that this is anywhere near a complete answer but it's something I bet could be reconstructed within our existing framework of Epicurean textual knowledge and wouldn't be hopeless task - at least from a "logical" perspective.

    "Buddhism in America"...is very much eclectic. At the Zen Buddhist Temple I attended there were rituals which were "more" Japanese Zen than what most lineages in Japan practice, and so monks from Japan would occassionally come to the Temple to study and practice under the head priest to learn the forms.


    When people asked questions about "rebirth" the head priest's answer was very much in line with what Joshua wrote. But yet the head priest never forced or required anyone to hold to any one belief of "rebirth", so that people often interpreted it with a modern twist. Also, in Zen Buddhism rituals are very important and are considered to be the gateway to enlightenment (which goes against the Theravada avoidance of the fetter of attachment to rites and rituals). So Buddhism isn't so cut and dry, even if that would make it easier to talk about, and as Matt appears to hope for.


    And this should be a lesson here for Epicureanism: It is really difficult to make people conform to one view of something. Everyone will have their own unique understanding of various points within the doctrine, and even that understanding may evolve and change over time.


    So for example: there are now the two "camps"...one who's goal is "tranquil pleasures" vs. the other's goal is "all pleasures which do not lead to greater pains" (and which is our school). This will continue to be an issue and so we probably need to "make peace with it"...reach across this divide and make a truce, because it will be up to each person to decide their goal and also which interpretations best suit their temperament.


    And something similar may happen for people within Epicureanism as with Buddhism. (Many people try out multiple schools of Buddhism (Theravada, Zen, Tibetan) before they find the one that feels right to them. Although in Epicureanism right now we don't have the formal level of development, other than what is online, but to me there appears to be two "camps".


    Of course we still need to be clear about exactly where we stand here in this forum.

    @Cassius...looking forward to hearing what you think?

    We definitely have a truce!


    The "Life is Short, Pleasure is the good, and I want all the pleasure that I can get at a price in pain that I find reasonable" group are invited to dig in here and work with us to reconstruct a viable modern implementation of Epicurean philosophy.


    The "Tranquilist" camp has my best wishes, and those who are open minded and still thinking about that issue are welcome to study with us here. But those who are committed Tranqulism are ultimately welcome to post elsewhere, because Tranquilism (or any form of Humanism or other philosophy or religion that doesn't posit "Pleasure" to be the highest good) is something that I respectfully have to insist isn't compatible with Epicurean philosophy.

    But I really don't expect that to be a problem or cause many hard feelings. Those who confront the issue, and come to realize that they are committed to the logical position that something other than Pleasure is the highest good, usually have no problem realizing that their project isn't consistent with what we're doing here.


    :)

    Kalosyni I’m trying to make this as “easy” as possible for the purposes of an Epicurean comparison. My main point is that there have to be some core tenets among all Buddhists that give some commonality. Interpretations of what those concepts mean can vary greatly. But if a Zen practitioner and a Theravada monk cannot agree that they both take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha because nirvana, samsara and karma are specific concepts expounded upon within their particular traditions by the historical Siddartha Gautama, then it will be impossible to even discuss this subject…because Buddhists would have such disagreements that it would be meaningless to classify them as Buddhists or that they have any cohesion of any kind.


    This really be far more of a Buddhist problem than it is for anyone else because I’m not concerned with intricacies of interpretations of nirvana, samsara and karma…I’m just pointing out that these specific concepts are very much integral to Buddhism, as other concepts are to other religions.

    Quote from Joshua

    I will attempt to take Cassius up on his request for an epitome of Buddhist teachings

    What you wrote seems basically correct for Theravada, Joshua. Mahayana Buddhists, however, would take issue with certain points of it. Some of them would throw out most of it.


    Quote from Joshua

    In view of the above list, you will apprehend the impossibility of removing rebirth, kamma [karma] or nibbana [nirvana] from Buddhism. They are integral. There are those in the secular community who keep the name of Buddhism for its ethics, or for its mindfulness, or for its psychology---but whatever it is that remains, it is not Buddhism.

    You have every right to call things what you choose, Joshua. But Secular Buddhists will probably continue to identify themselves as Buddhist. In fact those who follow Stephen Batchelor's line will say the Theravada tradition is NOT true Buddhism, that it suffers from translation errors that fundamentally distorted the Buddha's message, and also that the elements you describe such as karma and rebirth and so forth were NOT part of the Buddha's message at all but rather muddied their way into the Buddha's recorded teachings over time. Batchelor suggests this happened as part of an attempt to better conform the new "religion" to the widely accepted and deeply engrained soteriology in India thought.