- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
People of different times and lands discover the same ultimate goals of human life. The Buddha is the discoverer of such a goal as freedom from dependence, which in its limit, when you are free even from attachment to your own existence, is expressed in going beyond being and non-being. This goal was also close to many Hellenistic philosophers, especially after their acquaintance with Indian culture as a result of the campaigns of Alexander the Great. However, they did not accept it in its pure form, but mixed it with other final goals. Pyrrhos of Elis, a crusader, mixed freedom from addiction with the satisfaction of curiosity, the Stoics mixed it with dignity, some with self-realization, and Epicurus of Samos with pleasure. For him, enjoying life and getting rid of addictions are the same thing: we enjoy life by getting rid of addictions, and we get rid of addictions by enjoying life. Therefore, Epicureanism has both common features with classical Hedonism and Buddhism, as well as significant differences. Epicurean ataraxia (the word is borrowed from Pyrrhon) is not nirvana, but only upekha (upeksha) – one of the steps on the path to complete liberation, associated with serenity.
It is more correct to use a human name in this comparison – Gautama, who becomes a Buddha as a result of spiritual rebirth based in turn on a certain system of perception of the world. Due to the commonality of the principles of social existence for all times and peoples, the similarity (similarity, similarity) of conclusions reached independently by thinkers can also be considered natural. So in absolutely any religious and philosophical doctrine, with all their diversity, it is very easy to identify the similarity of certain key meanings. Of course, this can be considered as a confirmation of “inspiration from God”, but if this were true and each individual was absolutely unique (“artefact”), then such a scientific discipline as psychology could not be formed, it simply would not have an empirical basis for reproducibility of principles and relationships among objects of study.
Social existence is inextricably linked with the consciousness of people, they are initially interdependent and, as it were, represent a kind of dialectical unity of macro-and microcosms, and the principle of like from like is quite applicable to them.
It is not the similarity as a confirmation of a general pattern that deserves surprise and admiration, but just the originality and peculiarity as a manifestation of diversity in the community. Just as literacy is normal, but Dostoevsky's “Demons” or Sholokhov's “Quiet Don” are unique.
For a normal person, the Buddha's philosophy is the moral code of life and behavior of any person in society. The whole philosophy of Buda is benevolence and love for people and not imposing your own vision of human life and being. Epicurus is a sage and his vision coincides with the life principles of the Buddha. They are both wise!!! With respect.
Have you ever tried to live normally, with simple human joys? Why the hell do you need the philosophy and life principles of Epicurus or Buddha? They themselves never adhered to these principles, lived in their own joy, and wrote all sorts of garbage so that others could read them…
No one knows the answer to this question, because the life principles of Epicurus and Buddha are diametrically opposed, as is the genesis of these philosophies. Buddhism is a kind of inversion of Brahmanism, with the difference that only brahmins can achieve the brahmanic Nirguna, and anyone can achieve nirvana with the appropriate way of life. However, as it turns out, these any of the lucky ones according to the Buddha is much less than the brahmans, so difficult is the path of salvation. The Epicurean way of life is also elitist, if you don't confuse it with Roman Epicureanism, which is the usual piggishness of oligarchs. Epicurean atomism and Buddhist dharmism are quite close. However, it is not necessary to draw materialistic conclusions directly in both cases. The Buddha's nirvana is too close to the Nirguna of Brahmanism. And this is despite the fact that the Epicuran idea of the transcendence of the gods is quite close to the similar Buddhist understanding of the gods. However, Buddhist nirvana is no less transcendent than the gods, as is Epicurean ataraxia.
Consciousness, will, mind, senses, body. The will comes from consciousness, the mind from the will, the senses from the mind, the body from the senses. This is the idea of a person and his components in Buddhism. The source of pleasure is consciousness, the source of suffering is the body. You can enjoy each of the components of a person. Epicurus sees the pleasures of man in the three lower components. Buddha-in principle-in the top three. Plato saw truth in these three upper components, and illusion in the lower three. Therefore, Platonism is correctly identified with Buddhism. The similarity of Buddhism and Epicureanism is only in the search for pleasure, which is the right attitude to life. In this sense, we can consider Epicureanism as an optional application to Buddhism, which should not be carried away at the expense of the basics
After Alexander's campaigns, the Hellenes were very familiar with Buddhist philosophy, and even the Hellenic-Buddhist movement appeared, where, for example, Hercules became a Vajrapani, a defender of Buddhism. Greco-Bactria became officially Buddhist, and in the Mediterranean (Syria, Ptolemaic Egypt, Macedonia), King Ashoka sent Buddhist preachers (often of Greek origin). So it is not surprising that the Epicureans and other philosophical schools knew Buddhism, and borrowed from it, no.
it's funny when they steal and pass off as their own and in our time it flourishes and in the past Krylov used Aesop and philosophers did not disdain andscientists plagiarism