I am often fond of reading the writings of Epictetus, one of the founders of the teachings in Stoicism. I am not too sure when I started to read Stoicism or under what circumstances, but I believe I had initially discovered Seneca and Marcus Aurelius. Epictetus' "Golden Sayings" was one of the last Stoic texts I had read, unless Boethius' "Consolations" could be called "Stoic". I seem to turn to this philosophy the most when I am feeling socially insecure, and not sure where to turn when doubting the social infrastructure where I live. I'd like to share about one of the chapters in Epictetus' "Discourses".
In the first chapter, Epictetus starts by asking his audience what is used to comprehend subject areas like grammar, music, literature, and so on. His argument is something like: there must be some ability to discern the nature of things that is independent of the things themselves. While we sometimes believe that music is what makes us 'musical' and grammar makes us 'grammatical', Epictetus suggests that these areas cannot determine whether something is musical, grammatical or even good. He pinpoints the reasoning faculty as the only thing that can truly discern the true value of things. Epictetus even goes so far as to suggest that reason is the only faculty that the gods cannot take away from human beings, and describes reason as "the power to deal rightly with our impressions" (p.5)
Epictetus then introduces an interesting metaphor of the 'borrowed body'. He describes how Zeus, the king of gods, had given human beings this temporary body, through which Zeus has granted humans "a portion of myself": "this faculty of exerting the impulse to act and not to act, and desire and aversion, and, in a word, making proper use of impressions." (p.6) But, as Zeus later goes on to explain: even though humans only need to take care of their reasoning, they choose instead to take care of a great many things which are not within their power or are impermanent, Rather than taking care of the one thing that is within one's power, people tend to spread their concerns over a multitude of areas, including "body, property, brother, friend, child, and slave" (ibid). Zeus proposes the solution, "make the best of what is in your power, and take the rest as it naturally happens." The chapter ends with many examples of what people could do in extreme situations, knowing that they only have the reasoning mind and letting go of their attachment to the body. One of them even mentions that if they should be beheaded, there is one head which cannot be removed! Wow, it's a powerful metaphor.
It might be said that Epictetus writes from the perspective of 'salvation through reason alone'. But there is a deeper concept at work in his writings, and it has to do with a mind that is impervious to the ups and downs of the body. According to the Stoic philosophy, since my body is only temporarily 'on loan' by gods, I don't need to identify the body as me. I can simply let go of it when the need arises, knowing that it was never 'mine' to begin with. I see certain kinds of parallels with levels of meditative practice, in which a person no longer feels her or his body as an impediment, because she is beyond identifying with it.
Is this philosophy identical with Buddhist ideas about the body? In a way, but I also believe that Buddhism takes a broader and more nuanced view of the body. For instance, to be born in a human body is a precious gift, and it's a rare one at that. To have a body is to have the capacity to cultivate a spiritual practice and to have good karmic conditions to practice. Having a body is not something to be taken lightly, in other words. As well, without a material base in health, it's harder to have a spiritual life--not impossible, but perhaps hard. In this way, the mental and physical elements are connected in Buddhism. It isn't that I have a mind that travels from one body to the next, based on the biddings of a higher being, but that the body itself is part of the conditions of being and often contains the results of previous effects. There isn't such a notion that the mind is separate from the body.
Stoicism is attractive for the sense that it offers a sanctuary in reason against the turmoil of emotional situations. But I also consider: in my experience with meditating, it's slowly dawning on me that the resistance to emotion and 'the unexpected' moments is actually a form of suffering in itself. It's suffering because it creates a pristine oasis in reason, without considering the pain and repression of denying emotions. It's also suffering because trying to go against emotions by posing 'reason' is like trying to replace one thought with another. It's neither quite possible nor desirable. Every now and then, I glimpse a possibility of beholding a situation as it is without trying to fix it. Does it mean there is nothing to be done? In a way, it means doing from necessity rather than doing from a compulsion to perfect the moment.
Epicteus, (1995) The Discourses. Everyman
No comments:
Post a Comment