Living a Philosophy and not researching the same

As part of the Stoic group on facebook you start to notice several trends amongst postings. These I tend to  find fascinating. This post will cover a discussion that occurred concerning whether you can be both Buddhist and Stoic. This is relatively common due to the similarities between the two systems of thought but you often have Buddhists trying to use Stoicism to convert people to Buddhism or trying to blur the lines to pretend that there are no differences. Direct quotes from ancient Stoics will be in blocks of blue. My responses will be in italics and anything that is hostile or possibly contrary to the Stoic approach will be highlighted in red.

Anyway the OP (original post) was fairly innocuous.

This was followed by a welter of 'why nots' and 'no one would shoot you'. Now, remember, this is a Stoic group and not a Buddhist group and one member responded with the following.

This was like a red rag to a bull. Before we continue I want to lay some (Stoic) ground rules from some of the masters.

Let us start with how a Stoic might argue

Seneca

 that dispute you spoke too contentiously: do not for the future argue with ignorant people: those who have never been taught are unwilling to learn. You reprimanded that man with more freedom than you ought, and consequently you have offended him instead of amending his ways: in dealing with other cases of the kind, you should look carefully, not only to the truth of what you say, but also whether the person to whom you speak can bear to be told the truth.’ A good man delights in receiving advice: all the worst men are the most impatient of guidance.

So a good Stoic would not reprimand or offend as the result is that positions harden and your argument is harder to place. I find the last sentence also fascinating but feel it could be expanded

“Men exist for the sake of one another. Teach them then or bear with them.” (Meditations, VIII.59)

This quote is from Marcus Aurelius. You will note it does not say 'teach them or bear with them and if they don’t work be sarcastic, belittle or insult them'.

“A large part of mankind manufacture their own grievances either by entertaining unfounded suspicions or by exaggerating trifles … an overweening conceit of our own importance makes us prone to anger, and we are quite willing to do to others what we cannot endure should be done to ourselves.” 

Epictetus here and the 'do as you would be done by' reference is particularly apt. As a species we do tend to not see the faults that loom largest in ourselves and are incredibly sensitive and aggressive when these fault lines are pushed.

“So when we are thwarted or upset or distressed, let us never blame someone else but rather ourselves, that is, our own judgements. An uneducated person accuses others when he is doing badly; a partly educated person accuses himself, an educated person accuses neither someone else nor himself.” (Enchiridion )

Epictetus again and this almost goes to the heart of Stoic philosophy. If the only good/bad things that can happen to us are in our control then if we perceive something as bad then it is either in our control so our fault or is not in our control and in that case we are not being Stoic.

So how would a Stoic argue? Well they would not. They would discuss, would not get upset and would respond without rancour. They would be unlikely to change a position but if persuaded could. They certainly would not start throwing insults and denigrating the person they are discoursing with (note I do not use the word opponents here). If they fail they will move on 'bearing' with them. Also note that no one is a 'Sage' (in Stoic terms) we are just all at varying stages of a path. Therefore even Stoics can fail (as the Seneca quote shows).

So let us delve back into the thread. The most immediate response was a query

Benjamin Redmond How is Buddhism second level?

Seems reasonable. A statement has been made and more information asked for

Julie Fisher Buddhism still requires belief in supernatural things, like reincarnation. But they have some good meditation techniques, or so I am told.

Also reasonable. Death and rebirth and Karma are common components of Buddhism known by lay people. They also have apparently popular meditation techniques.  As far as placing the two on a ladder someone could conceivably prefer one to the other on the basis of the first point.

Benjamin Redmond Buddhism doesn’t have to be a religion. One can be a Christian Buddhist, and not believe in reincarnation. Buddhism is a complimentary practice and mindset.

We are still in good Stoic territory as the response is a statement that Buddhism contains a wide variety of beliefs. There is a logical flaw here though in that the majority of Buddhist  traditions do contain exactly that belief and the OP did not state 'is it possible to be a stoic and a non-rebirth or supernatural belief Buddhist'. It would be much like claiming you could be a Christian Pagan who does not believe in Christ. A person like that might exist but the vast majority of Christians do believe in Christ. So if an unusual sect is the basis of the counter argument then  that needs to be stated from the start. Julie picks up on this immediately

Julie Fisher Benjamin Redmond So in that case you have to first define which form of Buddhism you are talking about.

If it can be anything, then it is nothing.

All parties are still discussing in a very Stoic acceptable way. Julie's first point was covered above her second is that if you argue that a system of thought can be anything then it actually means nothing. Let us use a practical example. If someone states that the Christian religion (coming from a Christian background myself I will use this just because I am more familiar with its precepts) is against capital punishment so if you  do not like capital punishment then you should be a christian and the person they are talking to then states, 'actually I think capital punishment is a good thing' then the Christian responds, ' that’s good as the east Kansas sect is entirely supportive of capital retributive punishment so you should still be a christian' - this makes it both everything and nothing. 

Benjamin Redmond Buddhism comes in many forms, there’s Theravada, Mahayana, Tibetan, Zen, etc. commonly practiced all over the world.

Still very Stoical but does not address Julies point. If anything it reinforces it

Julie Fisher Benjamin Redmond Question. If it is correct, then how or why are there so many different forms. 

That suggests that people disagreed with the rules of one form or another.

Stoicism is simply a philosophy. We can discuss the merits of a or b, but we remain Stoic as we are always simply students, trying to learn more and striving to be Sages.

This is an interesting point. Stoic admittedly also had 'differences'  in ancient times with Greek Stoicism differing from Roman Stoicism and often on nuances from each other. But these were not schism forming differences. If that sort of thing occurred then a new School was formed (Cynic, Epicurean etc etc) which formed an entirely different Philosophy. Modern Stoicism has people favouring one thing over another but is still mainly consistent - especially when compared to any of the modern religions where differences inside Religions can get you killed let alone between people of different religions.

Nick Hess Julie Fisher that's not true, what you said about Buddhism requiring you to believe supernatural things. Patently untrue. Just because the Buddha occasionally spoke about reincarnation, that doesn't mean that you are required to believe in literal reincarnation.

You show a real lack of understanding of what Buddhism is. The whole "if it can be anything, then it is nothing" comment confirms that. It is entirely possible to learn about Buddhism--don't put the burden of your ignorance onto others and then pass it off as "if it can be anything, then it is nothing".

We now hit our first poster who does not seem to follow Stoic principles. You will note he starts with an minor  attack on the previous comment. Not "I don’t believe that is correct" but a black/white statement of "that's not true". This breaks several of the principles listed higher. He could argue he is just refusing to accept an incorrect statement but it is incorrect as a large portion of Buddhists do believe in supernatural things and from Nick's later comments it shows that perhaps his own belief forms are not indicative of what an actual Buddhist would believe (or even if Nick himself is a Buddhist)..Anyway let us move on. He then states his dualistic approach is valid due to a different statement in a different post. Basically mining various things he thinks supports his assumption. "It is entirely possible to learn about Buddhism" - a straw man argument. At no point has anyone stated that it is not. Then we have the jaw dropping "don't put the burden of your ignorance onto others" -  shots fired! - beyond the fact that, up to this point, that has not been even attempted  is also a back handed insult.

Adam Burucs Buddhism first was a philosphy. Others started a religion from it.

Also there is Secular Buddhism, which has no belief system.

Adam is still arguing in a Stoic fashion. It still does not address the 'all things to all men' counter so lets move on

Julie Fisher Nick Hess Then you must first define and explain which version of Buddhism you are talking of, before anyone can reasonably be expected to compare it with Stoicism or anything else for that matter.

Julie still has not had her primary counter even addressed so attempts to gain more information

Nick Hess Julie Fisher Not really. I didn't start this thread. But if you're going to make declarations about Buddhism being second, then I'd hope that you actually know what Buddhism is about. Yet you seem confused that Buddhism has different denominations, though that's a fairly common phenomenon among religions.

So Nick wants to fire insults but cannot be bothered to address the points he is insulting and not responding to? Not Stoic, or even particularly manly, but he then seems to come to the crux of his objections which does not appear to be 'why' Julie believes Stoicism is of more use to her than Buddhism but the fact that she put it there. He then issues another casual insult that she is confused. She isn’t Nick, her entire point is that the entire basis of the counter argument ,so far, is that exact point and still no one has shown how a arguing from the general can be defended  by a reference to an unspecified specific.

Julie Fisher Adam Burucs Thanks. So what does Secular Buddhism consist of?

Responding to Adam's last comment and requesting more information as the OC does not address enough

Adam Burucs In short

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism

https://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Without.../dp/1573226564

And Adam provides some more info. You will note the difference in both tone and information between Adam and Julies posts and Nicks' more defensive ones

Julie Fisher Nick Hess And as I stated earlier, if it has split into many different versions, that can only be because there is some rule or belief that a or b cannot accept.

As you say that happens with many religions, also political groups..

That is why my assertion that a philosophy of life stands above any religion, even a good one

Julie then turns to Nicks post. You will notice she does not argue or attack but explains why his response has not answered the primary reason for the entire sub stream

Nick Hess Julie Fisher That's silly. There are different "denominations" of Stoicism, and Buddhism is no less a philosophy of life than Stoicism is. Buddhism has an epistemology, an aesthetic, a logic, even metaphysics what with the abhidharmas. Again, you are clearly passing judgment on something that you're not educated enough on to pass judgment on it.

How many Stoics believed in Zeus? How Central was Zeus to the philosophy of those Stoics? My point in asking is that a philosophy of life can have supernatural elements and still be a) a philosophy and b) secularizable.

Nick though does not seem to see this and starts with a small  insult and also  finishing with the lovely little insult, "on something that you're not educated enough on to pass judgement on it" Beyond the repetitive use of 'on' and lack of punctuation (not something I should really comment concerning anyone else  but still) this is a quite nasty attack based on what? How does Nick know Julie's education levels? Nothing she has said indicates her education and her response does not require education in Buddhism to be valid/invalid. This is practically sexist in its implications of superiority. If he had ordered her "back into the kitchen where she belonged" it would have fit the general tone.

His last sentence is also confusing. He equates modern stoicism with ancient stoicism as an example of how Buddhism can be secularizable. But let's remember no one has made the argument that Buddhism, as a mass, is not a religion and no one has stated that the Buddhism in question is a popular secular version and if Buddhism is "some bits I like" as opposed to say 90% of recognised structure then is it Buddhism at all?

Julie Fisher Adam Burucs Thanks Adam, but that does say more about what Secular Buddhism is against than what it stands for.

Though it suggests that the Eightfold path is the basis... Though I could have misunderstood.

Julie then shows that she checked the links Adam provided so is now more knowledgeable on Buddhism than before and then shows that the info provided does not appear to do much to address the issues beyond the sub thread.

Julie Fisher Nick Hess Then we agree to differ. Philosophy, based on rationality on logos, has no room for supernatural elements.

Suggesting that one must first be "educated" in a religion before you can pass judgement on it is incorrect.

And I would not pass judgement, in any event.

It is clear to me that Stoic Philosophy is logical and rational.

Nothing that you have said has convinced me of the value of Buddhism.

Nick has shown little appetite for Stoic discourse and little control of his own negative emotions so Julie elegantly agrees to differ on the basis stated and attempts to bow out of further discussion. She has failed to educate (not from want of trying) so is going to 'bear' with him instead. Her second statement is spot on. I do not need to take heroin to decide that is bad. Stoic reason is something that can be applied to anything regardless as to detailed knowledge. If it was not then you would never learn anything as no one can read everything on everything to make an 'informed' decision. The next statement is just correct and the last  basically states that the random insults thrown around by Nick have not done any convincing. Note this is an opinion - Julie is not saying, "nothing that you have said can convince anyone of the value of Buddhism"; just herself. Lots of other Stoics as well, in all likelihood, but Julie does not even claim that.

This elegant Stoic write off seemed to make Nick both sad and angry

Nick Hess Julie Fisher What are you talking about?!? You're really gonna say that philosophy has NO place for supernatural elements--in a Stoicism group? Do you have any idea how many supernatural elements exist in Stoicism? Zeus? Pantheistic all-pervading intelligence? Divine sparks? Stoicism is replete with supernatural elements yet we still consider it a philosophy. We don't get too hung up on those elements because we can further reason out the particular philosophical system without those elements. If everyone here can do it for Stoicism, then I'm stumped as to why you can't do it for Buddhism. Zen Buddhists, for instance, tend to not buy into supernatural elements at all. Even the Buddha himself tended to keep quiet when asked to speculate on metaphysical questions. 

Buddhism is very much rational. The fact that you're suggesting it isn't is simply ignorant. Name one Buddhist logician. 

You can't do it.

You can't do it because you're not actually educated about Buddhism.

Like, seriously, if you're not even familiar with the likes of Nagarjuna, don't go telling people on the internet that Buddhism is second because it isn't rational or logical. You might accidentally end up telling it to folks who know better.

We are getting to more extreme levels here. Nick starts with a statement "What are you talking about?" which is either a casual insult or states that Nick has some trouble understanding English. The second statement is fascinating. Let us remember that up to this point the main counter argument has been that Buddhism or at least a large un-named section of it has no supernatural elements. Yet now Nick seems to be arguing that not only Buddhism but also Stoicism does? Yet this is Julie's Stoicism we are talking about and she has made it clear that her objection to Buddhism is that very thing? The statement that a philosophy that dropped reference to Zeus and the Greek gods in the modern age is comparable to a religion that has not yet done the same seems to be comparing apples to oranges but maybe he has a small point here. I am fascinated how Nick knows so much about what Buddha thought or did as well. Next Nick puts up a nice straw man argument and claims that Julie claims Buddhism is not rational which is not the case. Julie stated that Stoicism was rational and that rational has no space for supernatural. Nick obviously therefore thinks that since Julie stated that Buddhism has supernatural elements then that it is not rational but Nick, himself, is arguing that he does not believe the supernatural sections of Buddhism and if that was true then his own switch and complaint is useless.

Buddhism is very much rational. The fact that you're suggesting it isn't is simply ignorant. Name one Buddhist logician. 

She did not argue anything of the sort though amusingly Nick himself argues exactly that slightly further up except he ignores it. Therefore the correct statement is "Buddhism is very much rational if you ignore the irrational religious bits. That most of the religion follows" and yes Stoicism has ignored the irrational bits of the Romano/Greek period but modern stoicism does this as opposed to most modern Buddhism.

Nick the  throws out another couple of random insults

you're not actually educated about Buddhism.

Why would she need to be? So far 'rational' Buddhism does not appear to be assisting Nick in being either rational or Stoic.

The last sentence is truly hilarious

don't go telling people on the internet that Buddhism is second because it isn't rational or logical. You might accidentally end up telling it to folks who know better.

Remember Marcus A '“Men exist for the sake of one another. Teach them then or bear with them.” (Meditations, VIII.59)' I would argue Nick is showing he knows a whole lot less about Stoicism and he certainly isnt teaching or bearing with anything.

Julie Fisher Nick Hess Ok, so you know better.

If that is what you think.

Ever classy, Julie does not engage. Not engaging is not enough for Nick who feels he has to continue

Nick Hess Julie Fisher I'm not giving you opinions here. I'm trying to deal with facts--you think maybe I just made up the name Nagarjuna? I clearly know more, and maybe that means better. But I wasn't trying to prove that I know more, I was trying to argue why you shouldn't be so arrogant towards Buddhism, or anything else you don't understand for that matter. Buddhists and Stoics have very similar goals with actually very similar methods. There's no use dissing it then.

Aaaaaand so Nick not only does not have an opinion he 'knows' what he says is true. He deals with facts whereas someone he does not know must obviously be dealing with fiction. He follows with another straw man accusing Julie of saying he made something up. Then  "I clearly know more, and maybe that means better "    ! Clearly? He follows with " you shouldn't be so arrogant towards Buddhism, or anything else you don't understand for that matter"

so more casual insults He finishes with There's no use dissing it then. - You will note at no point has any of this argument addressed the fundamental point Julie was arguing.

Adam Burucs Buddha only taught about how to end suffering.

No religion, no mumbo jumbo.

No religion? Perhaps that was the original intention but Buddhism as it stands today is i.e 

Buddhism is an Indian religion attributed to the teachings of the Buddha,

Ok this is taken straight from Wikipedia and everything from Wikipedia needs to be treated with caution but this is the most public facing comment concerning Buddhism.

Now in the discussion so far we have had mainly Stoic discussion with Nick providing what can only be described as a negative hostile argument. When this sort of situation develops it encourages others, usually more rabid, to jump in and that is what now occurred

Garrett Lang Julie Fisher Julie I also think nick knows better, and am a rational third party observer with no prediposed bias either of you. Other than that i know more about buddhism than you, which puts me in a good position to b an objective observer. Buddhism is very much based on rational thought, and your suggesting it’s not shows you’ve never spent the time to learn about it. It’s fine to choose to do that, but don’t talk negatively about something you don’t understand. In stoic terms: Describing the pros and cons of Buddhism is out of your control right now, so don’t try to do it unless u decide to at least learn the basics. If u want to be just, also a stoic virtue, I suggest not dismissing ideas you don’t understand. That is willful ignorance which is vey much against stoic philosophy. It’s one of the worst evils in stoicism as I understand it.

1

In the first section Garrett self-pleasingly describes himself as a rational third party with no predisposed bias. Then follows with 'Other than that i know more about buddhism than you, which puts me in a good position to b an objective observer.' 

Well no. Firstly that is an assumption and secondly that puts you on a 'side' so he is no longer impartial. He then attacks the rationality statement (and remember even rabid Nick argued that he ignored the non-rational bits. If this is the case then the Buddhist camp is all over itself logically. He then throws a casual insult "and your suggesting it’s not shows you’ve never spent the time to learn about it. "

Well no again. Julie already showed she learnt more about it when she did not have to but perhaps Garrett and Ian can read minds. He then commits the fake argument of "don’t discuss something you don’t understand". Using the heroin argument I can talk negatively about heroin addiction without needing to research it in great depth and Julie's argument has been both rational and Stoic so is not unseasoned. He then commits the colossal arrogance to claim someone else, who he does know, should never make a statement about a subject as it's out of her control. This is an egregious misunderstanding of Stoic philosophy,. What is in Julies control are her emotions and reactions to things. What is out of her control is how anyone else will react to the same and the same is true for Ian and Garret. 

 I suggest not dismissing ideas you don’t understand. That is willful ignorance which is vey much against stoic philosophy. It’s one of the worst evils in stoicism as I understand it.

Wow, insulting demeaning, sexist and overbearing in one simple sentence that shows little understanding of stoicism at any level. 

Kenneth Moe Julie Fisher Stephen Batchelor's Confession of a Buddhist Ateist gives a plausible account of how the supernatural elements in early Buddhism were remnants of precisely the religious doctrines Buddhism was meant to replace. Example: Sure, religious Buddhism retains reincarnation, but in Buddhist philosophy there are no essences, all things are aggregates of other things, so how, without essences, could there be a soul left to reincarnate? Both Buddhism and Stoicism are long and complex intellectual traditions with elements of the supernatural mixed into them. Divine providence is an example of something modern stoics usually overlook or reinterpret.

Kenneth Moe Julie Fisher TL;DR: Neither Stoicism nor Buddhism came out of their originators finished and perfect. Reason is precisely the slow process of refining methods and beliefs over centuries, as well as adapting them to historical circumstances.

More reasonable but stating that religious Buddhism retains reincarnation reinforces Julie's primary objection.

Irul As I understand, in Stoicism, there is a classic one which hold believes in deities or other metaphysical concepts to explain the existence of universe, and there is a modern one that more atheistic in nature. Thats why, the stoic people can hold other believes as long as the very core of stoicism is not be abandoned like 'virtue is the only good' and so on.

But what I like for Stoicism is that you dont need any metaphysical explanation like karmic fruits, the judgment of gods, etc to justify why you have to do virtuous act. This is, for me, make Stoicism is on top of other ethical philosophy schools which based themselves on metaphysical arguments.

cmiiw.

A supporter for Julie arrives. He makes the rational comparison between modern and ancient stoicism and even makes a specific reference to a specific difference between Stoicism and Buddhism.

Nick Hess Irul Karmic fruits isn't really metaphysical. Buddha karma is simply cause and effect. That isn't anything metaphysical.

Nick naturally is not pleased

Irul I dont really know how secular Buddhist interpret the how of karma works, but as a buddhist, as I know, the first law of karma is the certainty that if we plant a good seed, then we will receive a good fruit. Same with the bad. This is for me, too metaphysical where we set a dogmatic belief that a good results another good. Not really pure causality which can produce random things like a good seed can produce a bad fruit. 

I just say, that from 'materialistic' view, Stoicism is better. But if we are looking for compassion and altruism, I can say that Buddhism is better. Both schools - Stoicism and Buddhism- are good but of course not perfect. I am myself just try to combine both schools. Of course, I subtitute the metaphysical reasons like the reason why Buddhists do good, either because karmic law, or suffering as the nature of this existence (or cyclic existences) thats why we should help each other, and so on, with 'virtue is the only good' of Stoicism. 

In this case, I think that the Stoics still need ego at least to prove to themselves that they can live with virtue, such self-satisfication, while for Buddhists, they need to eliminate ego at all. 

In some teaching, we can choose either Buddhism or Stoicism since it doesnt matter because those teachings are same in this case.

Some teaching, we combine both schools because we might think that either Stoicism or Buddhism lack of something and needs complement.

But for some teaching, we must choose either Buddhism, or Stocisim or not both since their teachings are really different in this case.

cmiiw.

I love this post. Irul starts with the observation that he is a Buddhist. Apparently an actual practising Buddhist. Nick obviously is not as he 'ignores' supernatural elements and picks and chooses and does not appear to state that he 'is' a Buddhist (perhaps he does think that but we can only go on what has said). Neither apparently is Warren. So we now have a Buddhists opinion on the subject and he seems to do a good job of looking at the strengths and weaknesses of both.

Nick Hess Irul The thing is, that idea of karmic fruit is entirely dependent upon mundane cause and effect. The reason that good actions yield good results is because of cause and effect. The Buddha didn't just chalk karmic fruits up to magic--it's an entirely ordinary process. Most of the Buddhist explanations for phenomena are ultimately very ordinary.

Nick seems to have moved on from his "I have read stuff so am super wise, obey me fools" persona when confronted with someone who knows a lot about Buddhism yet still feels the need to argue

Irul not really mundane. supposed that you did a good thing to Mr. X, he might still do a bad thing to you. Your good action is the cause, and the effect doesnt mean that he will do a good action to you. a single cause can produce many effects... and we can't control the effects since they are not up to us. 

But in Buddhism, we can control the effects depend on the causes. If we do good things, they will result good effects.... but if we get bad effects, it means that these bad effects are not caused by our previous good actions, thats why they might be resulted from our bad actions in 'our previous lives'. Until this point, the doctrine of karmic law is related with the doctrine of rebirth. There is no other option, imo, to explain the misfortunes of our life if we believe in karmic law but do not believe in the rebirth. All religions that believe in karmic law like Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism always believe in the rebirth/reincarnation. 

So, there is a difference:

Stoic : Good cause doesnt always result a good effect since the result is not in our control.

Buddhism : Good cause ALWAYS results a good effect since the result is in our control by the principle of karmic law.

And this view, will shape the rest. But maybe I am wrong, so your correction is welcomed.

And is promptly put in his place by another rational explanation of why Nick appears to be talking out of his backside.

Nick Hess Irul no, in Buddhism, karma IS a mundane thing. It is SIMPLY cause and effect. Even rebirth is treated as an ultimately mundane thing because it is something that happens second after second, all the time. It's not something that happens after physical death--the Buddha doesn't like to talk in depth about reincarnation after death because it isn't important (see: the poisoned arrow parable). Besides, it conflicts with the more important tent of anatman, or non-self. How does a non-self reincarnate after the death of the skandhas? It doesn't make sense. The mundane interpretation of reincarnation is that because we are in states of constant flux, we are constantly dying and being reborn unto ourselves. The idea of our karma influencing future incarnations refers more to the fact that the actions we undertake in life will affect who we become later in life. The Buddha states this succinctly in the opening verses of the Dhammapada.

Nick is not just happy to insult Stoics when he is not apparently a very good stoic. He also feels free to tell a Buddhist how the Buddhist is wrong. He then amusingly references the supernatural elements he claims he ignores.

Good job Nick.

Julie Fisher Nick Hess and Irul, 

I don't want to get embroiled in this argument again because, apparently, I know nothing.

But both of you just mentioned re birth, reincarnation.

May I just point out that this irrational concept is a classic reason that, for me Stoicism is more reasonable.

You are also talking of causality, as in the cause and effect of an action done by a person.

Causality is fundamental to the universe. But you and I cannot "see" the effects.

Julie has not missed the irony of Nick providing a one man example of the Dunning-Kruger effect

Nick Hess Julie Fisher Julie, yes, again, you're talking out of your league. In Buddhism, reincarnation is understood to refer more specifically to the second-by-second flux of the individual personality. Because all the universe is impermanent, and people are part of the universe, we are constantly dying and being reborn in that way. Rebirth after physical death isn't supposed to concern Buddhists, as any questions pertaining to what happens after death are unanswerable.

This is more typical Nick. Lets start with a casual insult and then pretend not to have mentioned what has been mentioned.

Julie Fisher Nick Hess May I just ask once again, if you are such a font of all knowledge on Buddhism, why are you here on a Stoic group?

Nick seems to be an archbishop of Buddhism so Julie makes the simple query of why bother with Stoicism if Buddhism is so wonderful.

Nick Hess Julie Fisher Because they aren't mutually exclusive! Obviously someone is allowed to practice both.

Missed the point Nick. Missed the point. But as missing the point seems to be Nick's thing let us move on.

Julie Fisher Nick Hess But you are seemingly NOT doing so, you are defending Buddhism in a very passive aggressive manner.

Correct. Have a look at all the insults thrown by Nick and Garrett and their hostility when someone disagrees with them compared to the responses from everyone else.

Nick Hess Julie Fisher There's nothing passive aggressive about it, I've been totally direct in calling out you and others. What have I said that gives you the impression that I don't care for Stoicism, exactly? Can you copy and paste? Or can you just accept that someone can care for Stoicism and Buddhism at the same time?

Straw-man argument again. And yes he certainly has been calling people out which is not particularly Stoic either.

Julie Fisher Nick Hess You have not explained, or tried to educate on Buddhism. You have simply stated that you know more. Passive aggressive.

My initial comment, admittedly a little flippant was my opinion.

Stoicism being grounded in rational and logical thought is for me the only philosophy that works.

If others prefer other philosophies, fine.

And no, I personally do not think that you can be Stoic and Buddhist at the same time. 

I am open to being persuaded, but your constant exclamations that you KNOW everything and that I and presumably others are stupid, does not persuade me. It makes me think that you are trying to defend something that you know, in your heart, is not true.

I wish you luck.

Julie is now looking at Nicks posts content as opposed to the argument. She is bang on the money, She then states her initial statement was a little flippant, which is the most (in a negative sense)  that could be said about it, and then re-states her preference and why. The last statement but one  is interesting as we can re look at Senecas point from the start.

Nick Hess Julie Fisher, I've spent several thousand words saying more than "I know more about Buddhism".

So what if you don't agree about being both at the same time? This whole conversation demonstrates that you don't even know much about Buddhism--so how do you suppose that you know enough to believe that you can't be both?

Julie, you're being recalcitrant. You've constantly tried to pass judgment rather than learn. I've referred to explicit teachings and documents in trying to educate you on Buddhism. If you missed that, it's because you're not paying attention, not because I'm not trying to teach you.Manage

On his first statement -  I don't think so as "I know more about Buddhism" than practising Buddhists seems obvious from his posting history so far.  The final section of the 2nd paragraph seems logical but solely on the basis of Nicks postings "knowing more about Buddhism" it appears entirely correct to say that the sole Stoic approach is indeed better. Basically Nick ranks low in practising Stoic ability and does not seem to see that if he is a good example of a Stoic/Buddhist then no Stoic in their right mind would want to follow that path.

Let us double down though as Nick then throws more insults and sets up yet another straw man and makes the hilarious statement that he is trying to 'educate' Well he might think he is trying but lets face facts as he is not a good poster boy on the subject

This is not enough though as he feels the need to throw more insults out there so instantly posts again.

Nick Hess And I think the more charitable explanation for my defensiveness is that I think you are arrogant and misleading re: Buddhism. But I guess that explanation is too reasonable. Gotta reach and insinuate that I don't really believe in Buddhism at heart. Because that makes sense.

Julie Fisher Nick Hess Please, do me a favour.

I am sure that you are a member of Buddhist groups on FB too.

Pick one. Argue against Buddhism and for Stoicism in the same manner.

See how long you can go before being banned. 

I am curious. Not enough to do so myself, because I have no interest in Buddhism, but, for your own education, try it.

Julie then makes a useful statement that if Nick went on a Buddhist forum and used the same underhanded insults against Buddhists whilst calming that Stoicism was wonderful and no Buddhist could argue with him, as he had read books and stuff, then he would probably get a hostile reception.

This is as far as we will take the thread. What I found fascinating and wanted to try to explain might not be clear and is perhaps best approached with a quote from Musonius Rufus

As for the pupil, it is his duty to attend diligently to what is said and to be on his guard lest he accept unwittingly something false. But of what he accepts as truth, his effort should not be directed towards learning numbers of proofs - far from it - but only such are as plain and lucid. Finally whatever precepts enjoined upon him he is persuaded are true, these he must follow out in his daily life. For only in this way will philosophy be profit to anyone, if to sound teaching he adds conduct in harmony with it - lecture 1 Lectures and Fragments

In this lecture Musonius was covering people who spent all their time seeking detailed proofs but with regard to this thread it does prove helpful. The first part is simply that a student should have an open mind and not accept everything as gospel. No doubt Ian and Garret would entirely agree. 

The second sentence is key. If someone has accepted something as truth then there is no need to continually validate that truth but instead he/she must follow these precepts in daily life as otherwise the philosophy is useless. So with regard to this thread allowing that the people involved are Stoics (and not just people with some understanding of Stoicism or anything else) then their discussion should show signs of Stoic teaching. It is not necessary for a Stoic to 'understand' more about anything else for a person to follow Stoic teachings so a tramp without access to a library could be more Stoical than a University Professor. 

As I hope I have shown above Julie - who has stated she is a Stoic follower/student and knows little about Buddhism beyond the easily skimmed basics on the web , has responded in an exemplary Stoical manner. Whereas the professed Stoic/Buddhists have not. Their responses  fall far short in terms of intemperance, anger, desire to find detailed proofs of everything regardless of the basic tenets of the philosophy. Therefore if they are a 'good' representative of this type of person then either their holding to both systems has made them a worse Stoic or the grafting of the two has done the same. It is worth noting that due to their comments on cherry picking from the Buddhist faith they might also be not true Buddhists in the same way they appear to be weak Stoics and that as such they are a bad example of either, The fact is that the only self-professed actual Buddhist on the thread (Irul) appears to be a  far better Stoic than the cherry pickers. 

Regardless if you had no knowledge of Buddhism a Stoic student would be highly unlikely to read the thread and think, "my I really need to look into Buddhism" as the result of looking into Buddhism appears to be weak Stoicism. Whereas the person who has decided she has no need to look into Buddhism shows high levels of Stoic attainment. I know which path looks 'better' to me which rather seems to reinforce Julie's initial point.

This has been a long post and I hope proved of some use/interest. If it has not then the fault is all mine. I doubt Ian and Warren when agree with any of my points but I also feel they are like many people in the world who are looking for something and know not what it is. Therefore they pick something here and look at something there creating a mismatch of a world view that just requires them to go further down that particular rabbit hole. That  hole is very deep and I doubt it ever comes out at the other side and just leads to more cherry picking as they attempt to read up everything on all religions - Jack of all trades and master of none (as the old phrase goes). Better perhaps to pick one and stick with it and as Musonius would say - it is not the theory that counts but the application.

Finally I am entirely aware of the irony of someone practising Stoicism spending a long blog post critiquing others. That just says more about how far I am along my own Stoic path more than anything else...Apologies for spelling/grammar/punctuation mistakes!!