2022 Epicurus vs Buddhism Compare and Contrast Thread

Incidentally, I am re-reading parts of the Dhammapada, and I am reminded how antithetical many of the propositions in ancient Buddhist scriptures are to Epicurean Philosophy. We do find similarities in the evaluation of mindfulness, the importance of community, and a commitment to a behavioral code, but I think we will find these features in most wisdom traditions. The rest is ... well, I believe that Nietzsche shares a useful conclusion in referring to it as "life-negating":

• Just as a storm throws down a weak tree, so does Mara overpower the man who lives for the pursuit of pleasures..." (7)
• "Just as rain does not break through a well-thatched house, so passion never penetrates a well-developed mind." (14)
• “Do not give way to heedlessness. Do not indulge in sensual pleasures. Only the heedful and meditative attain great happiness.” (27)
• "But those who act according to the perfectly taught Dhamma will cross the realm of Death, so difficult to cross." (86)
• "Giving up sensual pleasures, with no attachment, let the wise man cleanse himself of defilements of the mind." (88)
• “Inspiring are the forests in which worldlings find no pleasure. There the passionless will rejoice, for they seek no sensual pleasures.” (99)
• "... upon dissolution of the body that ignorant man is born in hell." (140)
• “Easy to do are things that are bad and harmful to oneself. But exceedingly difficult to do are things that are good and beneficial.” (163)
• “… The righteous live happily both in this world and the next.” (169)
• "Swans fly on the path of the sun; men pass through the air by psychic powers; the wise are led away from the world after vanquishing Mara and his host." (175)
• "Happy indeed we live, we who possess nothing. Feeders on joy we shall be, like the Radiant Gods." (200)
• "Seek no intimacy with the beloved and also not with the unloved, for not to see the beloved and to see the unloved, both are painful. Therefore hold nothing dear, for separation from the dear is painful. There are no bonds for those who have nothing beloved or unloved. From endearment springs grief, from endearment springs fear. From him who is wholly free from endearment there is no grief, whence then fear? From affection springs grief, from affection springs fear. From him who is wholly free from affection there is no grief, whence then fear? From attachment springs grief, from attachment springs fear. From him who is wholly free from attachment there is no grief, whence then fear?" (210-214)
• "Your life has come to an end now; You are setting forth into the presence of Yama, the king of death. No resting place is there for you on the way, yet you have made no provision for the journey!" (237)
• "Unchastity is the taint in a woman..." (242)
• "Of all the paths the Eightfold Path is the best; of all the truths the Four Noble Truths are the best; of all things passionlessness is the best: of men the Seeing One (the Buddha) is the best. This is the only path; there is none other for the purification of insight. Tread this path, and you will bewilder Mara." (273-274)
• "Cut off your affection in the manner of a man plucks with his hand an autumn lotus..." (285)

Like Epicurus' opponents, early Buddhists (as recorded in the texts) do not distinguish between stable pleasure versus excessive pleasures. They describe pleasures to be necessarily excessive, intrinsically insatiable, fundamentally destructive, and ultimately evil. In this regard, as far as general ethical positions go, this attitude is categorically Platonic or Stoic.

Likewise, the treatment of identity and death seems to be irreconcilable with Epicurean Philosophy. Most ancient Indian philosophies (Buddhism included, among dozens of others) propose that our identity can be reduced to an indestructible Self, distinct from bodily phenomena, carrying a trans-dimensional record of a Self's ethical history, and that record dictates into which new, animal body the indestructible Self will manifest, and from which bodies it will be restricted.

Granted, while the physics are off, there is some ethical coherence. The descriptions of the Awakened One by Buddhists and the Wise Man by Epicureans share similar descriptions: an admirable person, godlike in behavior, fearless, patient, mindful, kind, peaceable, a preventer of violence, never impulsive, who acts in accordance with their beliefs. (Then again, as I propose, the reason for this coherence is because ethics is grounded in nature, and that nature affects everyone, regardless of the beliefs that arose from their niche, cultural context:)

• "One is not wise because one speaks much. He who is peaceable, friendly and fearless is called wise." (258)

However, even as such, the specific ethical rules dictated by early Buddhists are extensive, uncompromising, and, from my perspective, perilously conservative. Most of these rules (as I understand them) were not intended for people outside of the early monastic community. Siddhartha prescribes a monastic life for his followers, so ethical guidelines are contextualized within the life of a monk or nun. As far as that goes, Sex seems to be Enemy #1.

The very first book of the Pāli Canon (the ancient Buddhist scriptures) is a code of conduct for bhikkhus ("monks") and bhikkhunis ("nuns"). To note a few of those rules:

• Sexual intercourse leads to complete expulsion from the monastic community. (Pārājika 1)
• Masturbating warrants correction. (Saṅghādisesa 1)
• Holding hands with another person warrants correction. (Saṅghādisesa 2)
• Marriage proposals warrant correction. (Saṅghādisesa 5)
• Huts not built to the Buddha's design specifications warrant correction. (Saṅghādisesa 6)

This is followed by hundreds (and hundreds) of other restrictions that seem to govern every aspect of an early Buddhist mendicant's day, from the way they dress, to the way they shave, walk, eat, speak and, most importantly, which thoughts are acceptable thoughts to entertain.

If there is a foil to Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n' Roll, I think it might be Buddhism.

Now, having levied that critique, let me also add that I don't know of many Buddhists who hold themselves accountable to a 2,500-year-old monastic code, so I don't want to skewer Buddhism and Buddhists on the basis on texts, and a historical figure, who are no longer as revered as are more recent texts, mantras, and historical figures who have cultivated the tradition. My friends who have invited me to Buddhist gatherings primarily use East Asian literature that has been written in the last few hundred years, as opposed to Indian literature that goes back thousands of years. I find similarities with my own, Protestant upbringing, in which the hymns and liturgy we recite are only as old as the King James Bible, and Bible Study rarely included a study of ancient Greek.

Still, I hold other traditions to the same standard that I hold my own: "Why would I follow X/Y Tradition if I genuinely reject X/Y Founder's teachings?" For me, as a kid, the teachings of Jesus seemed antiquated, and did not provide me with solutions to apply to my troubles. However, Epicurus nailed evolution and quantum indeterminism, and I award him bonus points for his insight in the form of representing myself as a member of his tradition. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Siddhartha said that sex is as questionable as murder. I have to reject this.

Huh ... I guess my brain is set to auto-update my file on the Dhammapada once a year.

Anyway, I came back to ask myself the exact opposite question, for an unrelated reason, and I came across these verses that strike me as being very "epicurean" in tone:

6. There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

11. Those who mistake the unessential to be essential and the essential to be unessential, dwelling in wrong thoughts, never arrive at the essential.

12. Those who know the essential to be essential and the unessential to be unessential, dwelling in right thoughts, do arrive at the essential.

24. Ever grows the glory of him who is energetic, mindful and pure in conduct, discerning and self-controlled, righteous and heedful.

26. The foolish and ignorant indulge in heedlessness, but the wise one keeps his heedfulness as his best treasure.

28. Just as one upon the summit of a mountain beholds the groundlings, even so when the wise man casts away heedlessness by heedfulness and ascends the high tower of wisdom, this sorrowless sage beholds the sorrowing and foolish multitude.

41. Ere long, alas! this body will lie upon the earth, unheeded and lifeless, like a useless log.

66. Fools of little wit are enemies unto themselves as they move about doing evil deeds, the fruits of which are bitter.

67. Ill done is that action fo doing which one repents later, and the fruit of which one, weeping, reaps with tears.

68. Well done is that action of doing which one repents not later, and the fruit of which one, reaps with delight and happiness.

73. The fool seeks undeserved reputation, precedence among monks, authority over monasteries, and honor among householders.

76. Should one find a man who points out faults and who reproves, let him follow usch a wise and sagacious person as one would a guide to hidden treasure. It is always better, and never worse, to cultivate such an association.

81. Just as a solid rock is not shaken by the storm, even so the wise are not affected by praise or blame.

84. He is indeed virtuous, wise and righteous who neither for his own sake nor for the sake of another (does any wrong), who does not crave for son, wealth, or kingdom, and does not desire success by unjust means.

101. Better than a thousand useless words is one useful word, hearing which one attains peace.

102. Better than a thousand useless verses is one useful verse, hearing which one attains peace.

110. Better it is to live one day virtuous and meditative than to live a hundred years immoral and uncontrolled.

116. Hasten to do good; restrain your mind from evil. He who is slow in doing good, his mind delights in evil.

123. Just as a trader with a small escort and great wealth would avoid a perilous route, or just as one desiring to live avoids poison, even so should one shun evil.

127. Neither in the sky nor in mid-ocean, nor by entering into mountain clefts, nowhere in the world is there a place where one may escape from the results of evil deeds.

128. Neither in the sky nor in mid-ocean, nor by entering into mountain clefts, nowhere in the world is there a place where one may will not be overcome by death.

131. One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter.

132. One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness hereafter.

141. Neither going about naked, nor matted locks, nor filth, nor fasting, nor lying on the ground, nor smearing oneself with ashes and dust, nor sitting on the heels (in penance) can purify a mortal who has not overcome doubt.

157. If one holds oneself dear, one should diligently watch oneself. Let the wise man keep vigil during any of the three watches of the night.

206. Good is it to see the Noble Ones; to live with them is ever blissful. One will always be happy by not encountering fools.

280. The idler who does not exert himself when he should, who though young and strong is full of sloth, with a mind full of vain thoughts — such an indolent man does not find the path to wisdom.

290. If by renouncing a lesser happiness one may realize a greater happiness, let the wise man renounce the lesser, having regard for the greater.

328. If for company you find a wise and prudent friend who leads a good life, you should, overcoming all impediments, keep his company joyously and mindfully.

333. Good is virtue until life’s end, good is faith that is steadfast, good is the acquisition of wisdom, and good is the avoidance of evil.

365. One should not despise what one has received, nor envy the gains of others. The monk who envies the gains of others does not attain to meditative absorption.

I'm going to condense all of this somewhere soon, but I this is a great repository for review, so I wanted to place it here, first ... to the growing list of things I keep re-forgetting.

Eikadistes

This thread is of great interest to me. I was involved in Buddhism, fairly seriously at one point, for more than a decade. It's what finally led me to Epicureanism: in a nutshell, I saw that Epicureanism contains many of the things I like about Buddhism (you've touched on some of these in your comparison of the respective wisdom models), without some of the things I dislike.

I see the incompatibilities as stemming from the fundamentally different premises of the two systems. Buddhism is predicated on the idea that conscious life doesn't end with the breakup of the body; rather, we (viewed in Buddhism as compounds that lack an intrinsic Self) get regenerated again and again in various planes of existence, most of them painful. The life-negating aspects follow from this premise. I've noticed that more modern, "secular" approaches to Buddhism that downplay samsaric rebirth are also less negative in their appraisal of life, and closer to Epicureanism.

Regarding the austerity of Buddhist ethics, the traditions I'm most familiar (Indian and Chinese) do hold up monasticism as the ideal. A monastic is seen as a kind of spiritual hero who has resolved to escape samsara once and for all. Laypeople aren't expected to abide by the monastic code, as you noted--the Buddha set out a more relaxed ethical regimen for "householders," consisting of five precepts. But there's a clear implication that someone practicing at that level is settling for a lower-level aspiration--i.e., to gain a favorable rebirth and hopefully to complete the path in some later incarnation.

The idea is that such a person lacks insight into the nature of samsara--if they were to gain that insight, they would abandon worldly pursuits and ordain. Indeed, in the traditionally Buddhist countries it's not uncommon for layfolk to ordain later in life. The model works and has sustained Buddhism for millenia, yet I'm not intellectually comfortable with it--I don't feel inspired by a system that demands such an extreme degree of renunciation as the pre-req for deeper insights and sagely bliss. Maybe I'm being too demanding.

Anyway, I look forward to more additions to the repository!

Quote from Robert

I see the incompatibilities as stemming from the fundamentally different premises of the two systems. Buddhism is predicated on the idea that conscious life doesn't end with the breakup of the body

There are within ancient Theravadin Buddhist texts - the Pali Sutta - certain passages which point to how conciousness is dependent on factors (Eye-consciousness: Arises dependent on the eye and visible forms. Ear-consciousness: Arises dependent on the ear and sounds. Nose-consciousness: Arises dependent on the nose and odors. Tongue-consciousness: Arises dependent on the tongue and flavors. Body-consciousness: Arises dependent on the body and tactile sensations. Mind-consciousness: Arises dependent on the mind and mental objects. (Theravadin Buddhism was the earliest form of Buddhism, and texts date back before Zen texts and Tibetan texts).

When studying and understanding this properly, then one can see that there actually is no rebirth. But the idea of rebirth is so entrenched culturally in countries which have Theravadin monastic groups, (and a few textual passages do speak of rebirth) so then this rebirth idea keeps going forward, taught by Theravadin teachers.

Quote from Robert

The idea is that such a person lacks insight into the nature of samsara

The idea of "samsara" is a very negative view of life, but yet certain people do have a lot of suffering depending on their circumstances (war, poverty, low wage-slavery, lack of sanitary infrastructure in third-world countries).

Then there are the "first-world" mental sufferings ......and we can see that Lucretius wrote about that in the De Rerum Natura -- the vessel analogy.

I believe that there are aspects Epicurean philosophy which can help relieve these "first-world" mental sufferings (and much more effectively than Buddhist teachings).

An major issue that I have with Buddhism is that it has an extremely "skeptic" take on the ability of the mind to understand things (as well as using skepticism as a method for how to overcome suffering through mental thought regulation rather than by taking actions). Parallels can be seen between Pyrrhonism and Buddhism. (I just found this if you want to read about the comparison between the two). If a mentally unstable person practices this, it can have bad results (and likely bad results for a mostly mentally stable person also).

So a major difference is that Epicureanism takes a firm stand on things:

VS41 - "We must laugh and philosophize at the same time, and do our household duties, and employ our other faculties, and never cease proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy."

And also regarding the idea of rebirth:

VS14 - "We are born once and cannot be born twice, but for all time must be no more. But you, who are not master of tomorrow, postpone your happiness. Life is wasted in procrastination, and each one of us dies while occupied." (See this thread to read about what is implied by "occupied".)

(P.S. Robert I also studied and practiced Buddhism before discovering Epicurean philosophy).

Quote from Kalosyni

Parallels can be seen between Pyrrhonism and Buddhism.

Undoubtedly the best scholarly introduction to Pyrrhonism is Adrian Kuzminski’s Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism. Although Kuzminski uses (particularly Nagarjuna’s) Buddhist philosophy as a helpful interpretive lens, the book is about Pyrrhonism.

It is a sympathetic introduction (which I think is the best way to begin – think Emily Austin’s introduction to Epicureanism). He insists that Pyrrhonists accept the testimony of the senses – as evident, rather than non-evident affairs; that Pyrrhonists accept the evidence of the senses, and reasonable inferences therefrom; and that they withhold judgment only with regard to categorically non-evident things – which are subject to non-confirmable belief. It is that kind of belief that, according to Kuzminski, the Pyrrhonists meant by “dogmatic.”

It’s a well-researched and well-written book. I won’t comment one way or the other on his interpretations – or the differences between Pyrrhonism and Epicureanism: I’m sure that Kalosyni can do a much more competent job on that score. (I’m not sure if Kuzminski would agree with Doug Bates – whose site Kalosyni linked, and who wrote a big book on Pyrrhonism – on everything. Or with other neo-Pyrrhonists such as Diego Machuca.)

I just thought I’d share that reference for anyone interested.

Quote from Kalosyni

Parallels can be seen between Pyrrhonism and Buddhism. (I just found this if you want to read about the comparison between the two).

I include a brief mention of those parallels in my paper about holy shit. There is a historical possibility that Nāgārjuna (the founder of the Madhyamaka philosophy, one of the primary influences of Mahāyāna Buddhism which represents the majority of practitioners), was directly inspired or influenced by the works of Sextus Empiricus. He may literally have had physical access to translations of those works. Granted (so I think), Pyrrhonism was, in the first place, inspired by a tradition (or traditions) that shared similar philosophical positions as Buddhism, so there is a direct, historical exchange between ancient Greece and India when it comes to skeptical philosophy.

Kalosyni Glad to meet another Epicurean former Buddhist! Were you affiliated with a particular Buddhist school/tradition? I started off with Zen but gravitated towards Theravada, in part because I like reading those ancient texts.

Yes, the idea of rebirth seems to founder on various paradoxes. We could say that the causal factors ("dependent origination") will spawn a new being, after I die, that inherits my karma. But since that new being doesn't remember being me, where's the continuity? And if it does remember, then there must be some vehicle for transmitting that memory, and doesn't that end up becoming a sort of Self -in-disguise? Questions, questions ..

Quote from Kalosyni

An major issue that I have with Buddhism is that it has an extremely "skeptic" take on the ability of the mind to understand things (as well as using skepticism as a method for how to overcome suffering through mental thought regulation rather than by taking actions). Parallels can be seen between Pyrrhonism and Buddhism. (I just found this if you want to read about the comparison between the two). If a mentally unstable person practices this, it can have bad results (and likely bad results for a mostly mentally stable person also).

That was a concern for me also. Not only the skepticism that knowledge is possible, but the denial that it has actual value--things are only worthwhile if they aid in the escape from samsara. Knowledge negation is bound up with life negation.

Quote from Kalosyni

The idea of "samsara" is a very negative view of life, but yet certain people do have a lot of suffering depending on their circumstances (war, poverty, low wage-slavery, lack of sanitary infrastructure in third-world countries).

An interesting question here about how philosophy and/or religion address this kind of suffering. Buddhism sometimes seems close to Stoicism in that it teaches us to overcome suffering by devaluing it. You don't need to grieve for your lost friend or loved one--he or she was just another transient being. Poverty, ill health, slavery (wage or otherwise) are the fruits of bad karma. The hope offered is that by taking refuge in Buddha you'll have less of this next time around.

How should an Epicurean address it? We have the tetrapharmakon. But is it sufficient in some of the extreme cases you mention?

Quote from Robert

Were you affiliated with a particular Buddhist school/tradition?

Started briefly with a Tibetan Buddhist group, then interspersed for a few times with a visit to a bay area Soto Zen Center, also once attended a Thai Forest Tradition short retreat for lay practitioners, and my main practice of several years of regular attendance was at a Soto Zen Temple.

Quote from Robert

An interesting question here about how philosophy and/or religion address this kind of suffering. Buddhism sometimes seems close to Stoicism in that it teaches us to overcome suffering by devaluing it

Later Mahayana (Zen and Tibetan) have added the Bodhisattva ideal, which brings in a bit more compassion for suffering, compared to Theravadin.

Quote from Robert

How should an Epicurean address it?

This is a very good question... so to state the question: how would an Epicurean think and act regarding: 1) one's own suffering; 2) other people's suffering - friends/family; community; strangers/unknown visitors/people living in distant lands.

***

Edit note: Oct.1, 2025, I have removed the website links which were originally embedded in this thread, but you can private message me with any further questions regarding specific Buddhist groups.

Thomas Jefferson had this to say about ancient philosophers (in the forward letter of his "Jefferson Bible"):

Quote

1. Their precepts related chiefly to ourselves, and the government of those passions which, unrestrained, would disturb our tranquility of mind. In this branch of philosophy they were really great.

2. In developing our duties to others, they were short and defective. They embraced indeed the circles of kindred and friends, and inculcated patriotism, or the love of country in the aggregate, as a primary obligation; toward our neighbors and countrymen they taught justice, but scarcely viewed them as within the circle of benevolence. Still less have they inculcated peace, charity, and love to our fellow-men, or embraced with benevolence the whole family of mankind.

Source: https://uuhouston.org/files/The_Jefferson_Bible.pdf

And it does seem that much of this could be said of Epicurean philosophy.

I seem to recall that Douglas Bates (whose site Kalosyni linked above), in his book Pyrrho's Way: The Ancient Greek Version of Buddhism – a thick, small-print tome in paperback – said that he gave up meditating because there was no record of Pyrrho or the Pyrrhonists engaging in meditation, or bringing that practice from India. I think he said that he took up long walks instead – no doubt a very good practice in itself, but ….

My initial reaction: I bet there’s no record of them playing golf, either – better take up discus-throwing instead!

Kalosyni, I'm always interested to hear about the experiences/trajectories of others who have been involved with Buddhism at some point, so thank you for sharing yours--and for the links. Some of those communities look inviting.

I still feel gratitude towards Buddhism; I learned a lot from it and it was my entry into philosophy.

Since Soto is so meditation-centric ("sit down and shut up!" as one teacher puts it), you must have spent much time on the zafu. What are your thoughts on integrating a meditation practice into Epicureanism?

Quote from Robert

Since Soto is so meditation-centric ("sit down and shut up!" as one teacher puts it), you must have spent much time on the zafu. What are your thoughts on integrating a meditation practice into Epicureanism?

I never considered myself an "intense" meditator. Some of the people attending the Buddhist group would be meditating every day for 40 minute sessions, at home.

For me it might have been just 5 or 10 minutes at home, but on Sundays I would attend the public group that had 40 minute zazen, and also weekend retreats (just a few times), and also mid-week class which had 40 minutes, and then over several years it starts adding up (lol).

But I feel like the meditation process which is based on sitting still, is training a certain part of your brain that is different than the part of your brain that is active when you are moving around doing stuff or talking to people. And you are still left with solving all the real-life issues that require a thinking, rational mind that needs to make choices and take action. If you are lacking in certain basic needs of modern life (work, monetary resources, friends, etc), then no amount of meditation will solve those problems. In fact it could end up causing you to "let go" too much, such that you aren't properly doing what you need to do to solve those life issues.

As for Epicureans, if it gives you pleasure and doesn't cause any longterm problems then meditation gets a thumbs-up.

Quote from Robert

I still feel gratitude towards Buddhism; I learned a lot from it and it was my entry into philosophy.

Yes, same here.

This Vatican Saying comes up:

VS54. We must not pretend to study philosophy, but study it in reality, for it is not the appearance of health that we need, but real health.

I always interpret this as a combination of both physical and mental health.

And this could be applied to Buddhism as well...even if someone sits in meditation, and appears to be doing well, what is actually going on inside their minds?

Epicureanism helps one make sense of death and desires, and that leads toward liberation without the need for years and years of long meditation sessions. You drop your mental worries because you have arrived at a sense of true personal sufficiency - through a combination of putting effort into setting up your life and lifestyle to be conducive to personal well-being and developing specific attitudes/understandings toward pleasure & pain and life & death.

Quote from Kalosyni

But I feel like the meditation process which is based on sitting still, is training a certain part of your brain that is different than the part of your brain that is active when you are moving around doing stuff or talking to people. And you are still left with solving all the real-life issues that require a thinking, rational mind that needs to make choices and take action. If you are lacking in certain basic needs of modern life (work, monetary resources, friends, etc), then no amount of meditation will solve those problems. In fact it could end up causing you to "let go" too much, such that you aren't properly doing what you need to do to solve those life issues.

This makes a lot of sense. It also helps explain a phenomenon that used to puzzle me; I'd experience these very nice states of tranquility during meditation, often with a feeling of bliss mixed in there as well, and it would feel like I'd accessed some reservoir of inner peace. But then as soon as the meditation ended and I had to get back to worldly stuff, dealing with normal tasks and interacting with people, it all dispersed quickly and I'd even start to feel irritated and grumpy. And I'd think, "well, that didn't accomplish much, did it, since it's not helping me at all right now." But since, as you point out, different parts of the brain were involved, this is all easily explained.

I wasn't one of those virtuoso meditators, either--when I had a regular, daily sitting practice, I usually did about 10-20 mins. Some occasional experiences with longer meditations in a group setting. These days, I'd worry about dozing off.

Quote from Kalosyni

Epicureanism helps one make sense of death and desires, and that leads toward liberation without the need for years and years of long meditation sessions. You drop your mental worries because you have arrived at a sense of true personal sufficiency - through a combination of putting effort into setting up your life and lifestyle to be conducive to personal well-being and developing specific attitudes/understandings toward pleasure & pain and life & death.

I have a similar take. I do feel that the engagement with Buddhism helped prepare me, though--not sure what would have happened if I'd encountered Epicureanism first!