Zen and Stoicism

Imagine two persons equal in most aspects with one relevant difference. One of them follows Zen teachings, the other is a Stoic. A casual observer of their daily lives would find it hard to guess which is which. In personal relations, both are generous and compassionate. They both take hardships in life with equanimity and rarely give in to rage or anxiety. They notice and appreciate everyday joys but are unperturbed if circumstances stand between them. For those with eyes for this kind of things, they both carry an aura of detachment. And, among other unlisted similarities, they both tend to regularly spend some time of the day with quiet contemplation.

Zen and Stoicism are indeed strikingly similar, especially considering that they emerged independently of each other in very different cultures. One is from a land where spirituality permeated every aspect of life, the other is the product of a society that laid the foundations of the modern rational worldview. I make an attempt below to examine the likeness between the two, then the differences. Considering the many different schools of Zen especially, the observations below will be crude simplifications, but hopefully not far off their marks.

To start with the greatest common denominator, both traditions share the view that real and enduring happiness (or at least peace of mind) is to be found inside one's own mind irrespective of external circumstances. One can be poor or sick or in a prison cell and be free and at peace with oneself at the same time. Their shared psychological observation, thousands of years ahead of their time, is that our perception of reality is the source of our discontentment.

Both advise enjoying what life offers without becoming dependent on them. To be present in the moment and to see everything, possessions, loved ones, and life itself as impermanent that can be and eventually will be taken away. 

They are both indifferent about deities and the afterlife. This is barely worth mentioning today but was remarkable in their times of origin. Buddhism was born in India with its countless gods, and Stoicism emerged in a similarly polytheistic society. The norms in both societies demanded the veneration of gods, spirits, and alike, therefore in the eyes of Zen Buddhists and Stoics who lived thousands of years ago, supernatural entities and the afterlife were a given. They were also unimportant. Both traditions teach the importance of the here and now, and that one's redemption lies not in the hand of gods, but is to be discovered inside. It's safe to assume that indifference instead of hostility to existing religious beliefs was in both cases more of a rational survival strategy than a principled choice in times and places where open atheism could make one ostracized or executed. 

The Buddhists and Stoics were anyway much more interested in practice than theory. They share an emphasis on regular exercises, both mental and in interaction with others.

Finally, they both have the concept of the ideal they aspire to be. What is the Enlightened One for Buddhists, is the Sage for Stoics.

And now come the differences.

Among which, the most significant is the one in aspirations. The purpose of Stoicism is to live a good life, which according to the Stoics, is a virtuous life. The purpose of Zen is to see through the illusion and see the truth, reality as it is. The Zen concept of the world as an illusion is alien to the down-to-earth Stoics.

Instead of breaking free of it, the Stoics encouraged full engagement with the world. They recognized that humans are social animals and strongly advocated, like good Greeks, active participation in the life of the community. In Asian cultures from the Indian to the Japanese, the Enlightened one is expected to transcend the constraints of society.

The roads to perfection might be through continuous practice in both schools, but the concepts of practice itself differ. The Stoics preached continuous self-improvement in the modern sense. Day by day, you hone your skills, mend your imperfections, and slowly and steadily become a better and better version of yourself. Zen is much more ambiguous about gradual improvement. Some schools advocate for it, but some teach that Enlightenment just happens (or not), doesn't matter how long you have been practicing. Practice is simply maintaining a state of being open to possible Enlightenment there and then, and the gains don't accumulate. That being said, I think Western (or Secular) Buddhism is much closer to the Stoic way. 

The practices themselves are quite different. The center of Stoicism is to see obstacles in life (physical hardships, personal slights, social stepbacks) as tests of character and opportunities for improvement. The Stoics actively seek out difficulties (not shying away from hard conversations, abstaining from culinary pleasures, stepping out of their comfort zone) to perfect themselves. The Stoic meditator reviews his actions at the end of the day to identify what can be done better next time. The essence of Zen practice, mediation is wholly missing from the Stoic world. In Zen meditation (nowadays known mostly as mindfulness meditation), one doesn't engage in an active thinking process. On the contrary, one tries to calm his mind and dispassionately observe thoughts rising and passing in the mind. And while doing this one realizes that the self, as the coherent unchanging essence of being, is just an illusion.

The psychological insights Zen and Stoicism impart are profound and very modern, but the overlap is little. The core insight of Stoicism is that humans are affected by the events in the world not directly, but through their own interpretation of them, and the only real control one has in life is that over his own mind. Zen's main discovery is that most of the time we are the slaves of our minds and not the other way around. Thoughts and emotions come and go uncontrollably as they please, but one can learn to be aware of this process and break free of it.

To sum it up, practicing Zen or Stoicism produces very similar characters but through different exercises that are built on very different worldviews.