Epicurious was Greek philosopher born around 340 BC, which is approximately 40 years after Aristotle was born. The scope of influence Epicurious has had on history, and today's modern world, can not be overstated. Much of the hedonistic ideal is attributed to Epicurus. While Epicurus did not say gods don't exist, he did tell his students to not be afraid, and to live life to its fullest without worry of the divine, for, after death there will be no punishment. However, this lust for pleasure in the present moment does not adequately convey his teachings, he was actually a strong proponent of a simple life and minimalizing pleasure, causing many people to refer to him as an ascetic.
Epicurious also developed an elaborate physical theory based on the atomist philosophy of Democritus, where the physical world is made up of small pieces of matter that can not be broken down anymore known as "atoms". This physical theory is remarkably ahead of its time, accounting for such natural phenomena as gravity and the notion that something can not be created from nothing. Another interesting aspect of his philosophy is his "films" explanation of perception. He suggested that our perception of the outside world is due to thin "films" of the object coming "into" our senses, he then concluded that this is how we get thoughts and ideas. A concept would be a thin "film" of an object entering our mind. He also constructed the first social theory argument, as far as I know, wherein which a society was formed through agreements to not treat people badly if they return the favor. Epicurean theory, though it talks of simplistic living and simple atoms, is not a simple philosophy, the physical aspects along with his description of the empirical senses alone is quite sophisticated, and would require a person to devote one's life to it in order to master. That being said, I have some issues with a tendency amongst modern Buddhists to compare Epicurean thought to Buddhism.
The three main arguments I hear that support a similarity between Epicurean thought and Buddhism are these: Firstly, that the materialistic perception of Epicurus and his insistence that something can not come from nothing is somehow equivalent to the Dependent Origination. Secondly, that his suggestion to not fear the gods or punishment after death is similar to the Buddhist idea of a reality existing without a creator god. Thirdly, and this is the most popular, that the minimalist teachings of Epicurious are comparable to those of the Buddha.
I will address these three points briefly and give explanations as to why I think these comparisons are hasty, at best.
First, the extraordinarily elaborate physical theory of Epicurious being similar to the Dependent Origination seems to be a stretch. The point Epicurious was making is that the world is conditioned by material "atoms", and while he believed there was a sense of free will (swerve, as it is called), the whole of reality can be understood by these physical conditions. Physical conditions which are empirically observable and completely in the realm of the material world. Dependent Origination, while a teaching on conditions, really has very little to do with this explanation, The two main firing points within the round of conditions in the Dependent Origination are the results of past kamma and desire. Neither of these are empirically apparent in the material world. Epicurious's declaration that something does not come from nothing may seem close to the never ending, never beginning cycle of samsara in Buddhism, however, it is an explanation of the physical world, purely in the realm of matter, while the Dependent Origination is a never ending cycle that is held in place by the Dhamma. This aspect of the Dhamma being, natural laws of conditioning that are not empirically testable, such as kamma and rebirth (you can find a more detailed explanation on this in one of my other posts).
Second, that Epicurious's insistence to not fear the gods or worry about punishment after death is similar to the notion that there is no creator god within the belief structure of Buddhism. Ottapa, Pali for fear, is a fundamental quality to the teachings of the Buddha. It is, in actuality, a wholesome factor in own's decision-making to fear the results of one's actions. Ottapa is the fear to be unwholesome and it stems from a fear of doing wrong now because of the results one would face from one's own kamma in this life, and yes, the next life, after death. While Buddhism does not have a creator god, this does not imply that it is similar with Epicurious's belief to not worry about the gods or that there is no punishment after death. The teachings of the Buddha are hinged on repercussions of past actions after death, I don't see how this comparison is valid.
Lastly, the idea that Epicurean minimalism is similar to the minimalism taught by the Buddha. While these two teachings look similar on the surface, they are quite different from the perception of intention (a quality the Buddha held as foundational). Epicurious was interested in the comfort of the senses. He did not advocate indulgence because that would eventually lead to discomfort. Epicurious thought of desire in three ways, natural and necessary, natural and unnecessary, and empty. It was through minimalizing the unnecessary and completely eradicating the empty that one found comfort in the senses. This is important, he wanted a life of pleasure via the senses, one of joy and ease. This is a drastic difference from the asceticism proclaimed by the Buddha. The minimalist path taught by the Buddha was a means to detach oneself from the senses, not to find a comfortable state within them. According the Buddha, desire itself leads to suffering, one's desire to find this state of comfort that Epicurious advocated would only lead to suffering in the eyes of the Buddha. While both lived, and taught, a minimalist life, the intention behind this life was much different.
To take one of the Buddha's own metaphors, from the Upali Sutta; When one is walking with the intention to cross a path and steps on a beetle unaware, compared to when one steps on a beetle with the intention to step on a beetle. While both acts seem similar, they are quite different. This was one quality of action and livelihood the Buddha was very clear about, intention. So, while Epicurious leads a minimalist life with the intention to attain a state of comfort WITHIN the senses, the Buddha leads a minimalist life with the intention to detach himself FROM the senses. While on the surface these two may seem to share certain qualities, the teachings are rather far apart, and these similarities may not be so similar after all.
Fascinating. Really enjoyed reading this post.
ReplyDelete