[Buddha-l] The Buddha, an 'emotional weakling'?

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Stefan Detrez schreef:

> Dear Listmembers,
>  
> Reading an introduction to ethics, I encountered this citation on the 
> Stoic.
>  
>    'The Stoic, though he seems strong and brave and imperturbable, is 
> really an emotional weakling who cannot stand to get hurt and so takes 
> out insurance against failure in advance by toning down his desires 
> and hopes to the point where he knows they can be fulfilled. ... He is 
> afraid to gamble lusitly and play for great stakes. ... In his fear of 
> suffering the death of great dissappointment, he chooses to live 
> half-dead rather than taste the full joy of living, with all its 
> possibilities of tragic ending.'
>  
> (from John Hospers, 'Human Conduct. Problem of Ehtics', 
> Thomson-Wadsworth, 1996, p. 55.)
>  
> How does this differ from the Buddha's attitude towards life and 
> suffering? Could it be that the Buddha, too, tried to tone down his 
> desires and hopes in order to escape dissappointment? Would, if so, 
> that not be illustrative of a person who doesn't like to run the risk 
> of getting emotionally hurt and rather locks himself up emotionally? 
> How does 'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved 
> at all' apply to the Buddha? Does the Ariyapariyesana Sutta not 
> suggest that the motives for leaving a luxury life were not only the 
> feeling of discomfort and boredom from the incapacitating power of 
> excess, but more so an existential an emotional handicap to deal with 
> live's tougher issues. Or maybe the fear of having to handle the 
> responsibilities of a worldly leader?
>  
> Best wishes,
>  
> Stefan

First of all, the criticism of the Stoa looks like it comes from conservative Christian sources and Christians have developed the habit of misunderstanding and misrepresenting every competing kind of philosophy and way of life in order to prove to themselves that they're the only real people on this planet. 
It could however also come from Nietzsche or one of his followers. This would be more serious, because Nietzsche knew waht he was talking about, being professor of Greek philology at the Uni of Basel. But he was half a stoic himself. This criticism would have to be read as directed to a bad stoic. Nietzsche did however accuse the Buddha of running away from life. I personally think that this boils down to criticism against the antisocial arhant and pratyekabuddha, because they don't strive develop themselves fully and run away from society.

Erik


www.xs4all.nl/~jehms
weblog http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950