[Buddha-l] Re: Buddha as a Stoic

[Cameron Hughes]

Hello Stefan,

I'm not sure if this is much help, because I'm not quite sure in what
way your asking this question, it could be cynical or it could simply
be wanting to understand what you read--I'll assume the latter for
now.

It seems as if this definition of stoic is presupposing that ALL
Stoics consciously decide their stance on issues prompting emotional
response, someone people are just born that way! However the Buddha
endorsed the middle way and living a life devoid of attachment, the
phrase 'emotional weakling' (in that sense) is actually somewhat of an
oxymoron. Letting your emotions get the best of you is moreso being
weak than controlling anger, lust, or fear of death as you would say.
There is no fear in death, only uncertainty, and if that then causes
fear that is more weak (to me) than anything--everything is uncertain!

Even so, the Buddha never claimed to be a world leader, or even a
leader of this movement. So--

>Or maybe the fear of having to handle the
> responsibilities of a worldly leader?

is not exactly right either. Did you read this from a Christian
apologetics site?

Once again, this could probably be of no help at all, or completely
wrong, so don't take my word for it!

Cameron Hughes

> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:53:46 +0200
> From: "Stefan Detrez" <stefan.detrez at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Buddha-l] The Buddha, an 'emotional weakling'?
> To: "Buddhist discussion forum" <buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com>
> Message-ID:
>        <4526ba440606202353u4d4f78e9ua230f9dc8320d180 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear Listmembers,
>
> Reading an introduction to ethics, I encountered this citation on the Stoic.
>
>   'The Stoic, though he seems strong and brave and imperturbable, is really
> an emotional weakling who cannot stand to get hurt and so takes out
> insurance against failure in advance by toning down his desires and hopes to
> the point where he knows they can be fulfilled. ... He is afraid to gamble
> lusitly and play for great stakes. ... In his fear of suffering the death of
> great dissappointment, he chooses to live half-dead rather than taste the
> full joy of living, with all its possibilities of tragic ending.'
>
> (from John Hospers, 'Human Conduct. Problem of Ehtics', Thomson-Wadsworth,
> 1996, p. 55.)
>
> How does this differ from the Buddha's attitude towards life and suffering?
> Could it be that the Buddha, too, tried to tone down his desires and hopes
> in order to escape dissappointment? Would, if so, that not be illustrative
> of a person who doesn't like to run the risk of getting emotionally hurt and
> rather locks himself up emotionally? How does 'Tis better to have loved and
> lost than never to have loved at all' apply to the Buddha? Does the
> Ariyapariyesana Sutta not suggest that the motives for leaving a luxury life
> were not only the feeling of discomfort and boredom from the incapacitating
> power of excess, but more so an existential an emotional handicap to deal
> with live's tougher issues. Or maybe the fear of having to handle the
> responsibilities of a worldly leader?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Stefan
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20060621/6a3ae719/attachment.html