The Daoists, the Stoics, The Epicurians

[Cymro]

I'm trying to lead a more focused life, and toward that end I'm doing a lot of reading.

 

The Epicureans, Stoics, and Daoists have a lot in common: the joy of a simple life, withdrawn from wordly affairs and focused on natural harmony and self awareness. However, the Daoists often speak about longevity--something more or less absent from the other two schools of thought.

 

And then I re-read Seneca's De Brevitate Vitae, which discusses the shortness of life, as the title suggests, and goes on to conclude that any life is long enough if used properly.

 

I'm still kicking around this idea, so I'm just looking for other opinions: should we be reading the Daoist focus on longevity at least in part metaphorically? Could they on some level also be talking about making the most of life, rather than just supernatural longevity or immortality?

 

These are the thoughts I think with too little sleep and too much tea. I look forward to hearing your ideas.

[Miffymog]

I have a very simple practice and it would be nice if it added a couple of slightly more healthy years on at the end of my life, but this is not what I look to as its too far away to concern me.

 

The way it extends my life at the moment is this. I gain a bit more energy from it and get more done in a day. If I have 25% more motivation and energy in a day from my practice, has it then not elongated my day by 25%?

 

If this is extended over a life time, then, maybe I'll have 'extended' my life by 25%.

 

As for the more advanced practices and deeper philosophical aspects, I can't comment.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Miffymog

[Chang]

The Daoist desire for longevity in one respect was simply to allow them the time to complete their spiritual quest. It should also be noted that it was not just a long life that was desired. It was a long life during which you maintained both physical and mental vigour.

[Taoist Texts]

The Epicureans, Stoics, and Daoists have a lot in common: the joy of a simple life, withdrawn from wordly affairs and focused on natural harmony and self awareness. However, the Daoists often speak about longevity--something more or less absent from the other two schools of thought.

Whatever they had in common there is one big difference. The greeks were philosophers while the Daoists were magicians, meaning that the former had to accept their lot while daoists had magical tools at their disposal to change their lot

 

 

And then I re-read Seneca's De Brevitate Vitae, which discusses the shortness of life, as the title suggests, and goes on to conclude that any life is long enough if used properly.

Yeah its what the french call 'Faire bonne mine à mauvais jeu'

I'm still kicking around this idea, so I'm just looking for other opinions: should we be reading the Daoist focus on longevity at least in part metaphorically? Could they on some level also be talking about making the most of life, rather than just supernatural longevity or immortality?

No and no

[dawei]

I'm still kicking around this idea, so I'm just looking for other opinions: should we be reading the Daoist focus on longevity at least in part metaphorically? Could they on some level also be talking about making the most of life, rather than just supernatural longevity or immortality?

 

What is 'life'?  

 

I think if you define 'life' correctly, you'll see your answer.

[Marblehead]

Chuang Tzu stated that a long life is no different from a short life.

 

But then he also spoke to the concept of living a safe life so that we could live out our natural life span.

 

The purpose of life can be found in the living of it.  (This was inspired by Dawei's post above.)

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Whatever they had in common there is one big difference. The greeks were philosophers while the Daoists were magicians, meaning that the former had to accept their lot while daoists had magical tools at their disposal to change their lot

 

With all due respect Taoist Texts, and believe me, in your areas of expertise I have a lot of respect for you, except for the Stoics, Greek Philosophy gave a lot of impetus to esoteric arts of all kinds, especially Platonism and Aristotelianism, though as I think about it, the Stoics were responsible for a lot of development in Astrology, the Philosopher-magician was alive and well.  The case of Epicureans is more complex, I cannot speculate about them, but the influence of Plato and Aristotle and their followers an Western esoteric practices lasts from the Hellenistic period through the late Nineteenth Century.  I have posted a great deal on the roots of the Occult Philosophy of the Renaissance Platonist and Magician Cornelius Agrippa in Agrippa subsection of the Esoteric section of TDB.

 

What is 'life'?  

 

I think if you define 'life' correctly, you'll see your answer.

 

An excellent post, it gets right to the core of the matter. Oh, but getting to that core . . . aye, there's the rub.

[Taoist Texts]

With all due respect Taoist Texts, and believe me, in your areas of expertise I have a lot of respect for you,

The feeling is mutual

except for the Stoics, Greek Philosophy gave a lot of impetus to esoteric arts of all kinds, especially Platonism and Aristotelianism, though as I think about it, the Stoics were responsible for a lot of development in Astrology, the Philosopher-magician was alive and well. 

I was not aware about such POV, thanks

The case of Epicureans is more complex, I cannot speculate about them, but the influence of Plato and Aristotle and their followers an Western esoteric practices lasts from the Hellenistic period through the late Nineteenth Century. 

I am sure it does but does it last as a mainstream continuity, a deviation, or a lip service? Also, Plato and Aristotle at their core have opposing worldviews, as i vaguely remember.

 

I have posted a great deal on the roots of the Occult Philosophy of the Renaissance Platonist and Magician Cornelius Agrippa in Agrippa subsection of the Esoteric section of TDB.

 

I knew very little of him and will make sure to read your material. Also found his quote which is amusing enough to copy here:

 

 

But of magic I wrote whilst I was very young three large books, which I called Of Occult Philosophy, in which what was then through the curiosity of my youth erroneous, I now being more advised, am willing to have retracted, by this recantation; I formerly spent much time and costs in these vanities.

 

At last I grew so wise as to be able to dissuade others from this destruction. For whosoever do not in the truth, nor in the power of God, but in the deceits of devils, according to the operation of wicked spirits presume to divine and prophesy, and practising through magical vanities, exorcisms, incantions and other demoniacal works and deceits of idolatry, boasting of delusions, and phantasms, presently ceasing, brag that they can do miracles, I say all these shall with Jannes, and Jambres, and Simon Magus, be destinated to the torments of eternal fire.

 

Returning to the topic at hand which is longevity i do not seem to remember that any of the classic magicians was involved with extending the human longevity beyond ordinary. There is a mention that Apollonius of Tyana underwent heavenly assumption.^[13]; and Empedocles  rejuvenating the old; but thats about it. It seems that longevity was not of interest in classical times.

[shanlung]

楊朱 or YangZu or YangZI (regardless of english, Chinese will be the same) will be a Hedonist and Epicurean and egoist all  rolled into one from about the time of Chuangzi and Liehzi.

 

Sadly much of what he wrote was lost and those that passed on down to us came from the pens of enemies that hated him and all he stood for.

 

Which was for pleasure first and foremost in the current life.  That he was said to declare he would not pluck a hair from his head to save rest of mankind.  Since that was enshrined in the writings of those like pompous Mencius who hated him, I wondered just what he wrote and from what  context were his words warped from?

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Zhu

Mencius's view of Yang Zhu

According to Mencius, “Yang’s principle is, ‘Each for himself’ — which does not acknowledge the claims of the sovereign. Mo’s principle is, ‘To love all equally’ — which does not acknowledge the peculiar affection due to a father. To acknowledge neither king nor father is to be in the state of the beast. If their principles are not stopped, and the principles of Confucius set forth, their perverse speaking will delude the people, and stop up the path of benevolence and righteousness” (Durant: 1963: 681).

Mencius criticized Yang Zhu as one “who would not pluck a hair from his body to benefit the world.” However, Yang Zhu emphasized that self-impairment, symbolized by the plucking of one’s hair, would in no way lead to others’ benefit. Although he would not toil for others, he would not harm them for personal gain or advantage, which should be avoided as external to one’s nature (Liu: 1967: 358).

Yang Zhu taught, “If everyone does not harm a single hair, and if everyone does not benefit the world, the world will be well governed of itself.” In other words, everyone should mind their own business, neither giving nor taking from others, and be content with what he has, and in that way one will be happy and also contribute to the welfare of the world (Liu: 1967: 358).

Nature

All beings, thought Yang Zhu, have the survival instinct, but man, the highest of creatures, lacking the strength of animals, must rely on intelligence to survive rather than strength. He felt that strength was despicable when used against others (Liu: 1967: 358).Although his detractors present him as an hedonist, epicurean, and egoist, Yang Zhu was, according to contemporary sources, an early Daoist teacher identified with a new philosophical trend toward naturalism as the best means of preserving life in a decadent and turbulent world (Liu: 1967: 358).

 

 

 

Idiotic Taoist waving palm leaf and singing hosannas to Yang Zu among the earliest one to drink when thirsty and eat when hungry and yabyumming when horny

[Zhongyongdaoist]

I am sure it does but does it last as a mainstream continuity, a deviation, or a lip service? Also, Plato and Aristotle at their core have opposing worldviews, as i vaguely remember. (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

It was in point of fact the mainstream, the reduction of philosophy to the modern academic discipline is purely a modern phenomena, a creation of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.

 

As for differences between Plato and Aristotle the case of the most famous, in his own day at least, thinker of the First Century BCE Posidonius:

 

He accepted the Stoic categorization of philosophy into physics (natural philosophy, including metaphysics and theology), logic (including dialectic), and ethics.[9] These three categories for him were, in Stoic fashion, inseparable and interdependent parts of an organic, natural whole. He compared them to a living being, with physics the meat and blood, logic the bones and tendons holding the organism together, and finally ethics – the most important part – corresponding to the soul. His philosophical grand vision was that the universe itself was similarly interconnected, as if an organism, through cosmic "sympathy", in all respects from the development of the physical world to the history of humanity.

 

Although a firm Stoic, Posidonius was, like Panaetius and other Stoics of the middle period, eclectic. He followed not only the older Stoics, but also Plato and Aristotle. Although it is not certain, Posidonius may have written a commentary on Plato's Timaeus.  (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

Eclecticism and a tendency to seek a synthesis and emphasize similarities was the order of the day, not differences as has been a tendency since the Renaissance.

 

Regarding Agrippa:

 

I knew very little of him and will make sure to read your material. Also found his quote which is amusing enough . . .

 

Agrippa's “To the Reader”, part of the Introduction to his own version of his Three Books of Occult Philosophy, must be taken as his “official” account:

 

[Agrippa] To the Reader.

 

I do not doubt but the Title of our book of Occult Philosophy, or of Magick, may by the rarity of it allure many to read it, amongst which, some of a crasie [languid, feeble] judgement, and some that are perverse will come to hear what I can say, who, by their rash ignorance may take the name of Magick in the worse sense, and though scarce having seen the title, cry out that I teach forbidden Arts, sow the seed of Heresies, offend pious ears, and scandalize excellent wits; that I am a sorcerer, and superstitious and divellish [devilish], who indeed am a Magician: to whom I answer, that a Magician doth not amongst learned men signifie a sorcerer, or one that is superstitious or divellish [devilish]; but a wise man, a priest, a prophet; and that the Sybils were Magicianesses, & therefore prophecyed most cleerly of Christ; and that Magicians, as wise men, by the wonderful secrets of the world, knew Christ, the author of the world, to be born, and came first of all to worship him; and that the name of Magicke was received by Phylosophers [philosophers], commended by Divines, and not unacceptable to the Gospel. I believe that the supercilious censors will object against the Sybils, holy Magicians and the Gospel it self sooner then receive the name of Magick into favor; so conscientious are they, that neither Apollo, nor all the Muses, nor an Angel from Heaven can redeem me from their curse. Whom therefore I advise, that they read not our Writings, nor understand them, nor remember them. For they are pernicious, and full of poyson [poison]; the gate of Acheron is in this book; it speaks stones, let them take heed that it beat not out their brains. But you that come without prejudice to read it, if you have so much discretion of prudence, as Bees have in gathering honey, read securely, and believe that you shall receive no little profit, and much pleasure; but if you shall find any things that may not please you, let them alone and make no use of them, for I do not approve of them, but declare them to you; but do not refuse other things, for they that look into the books of Physicians, do together with antidotes and medicines, read also poysons [poisons]. I confess that Magick it self teacheth many superfluous things, and curious prodigies for ostentation; leave them as empty things, yet be not ignorant of their causes. But those things which are for the profit of man, for the turning away of evil events, for the destroying of sorceries, for the curing of diseases, for the exterminating of phantasmes, for the preserving of life, honor, or fortune, may be done without offense to God, or injury to Religion, because they are, as profitable, so necessary. But I have admonished you, that I have writ many things, rather narratively then affirmatively; for so it seemed needful that we should pass over fewer things following the judgments of Platonists, and other Gentile Philosophers when they did suggest an argument of writing to our purpose; therefore if any error have been committed, or any thing hath been spoken more freely, pardon my youth; for I wrote this being scarce a yong [young] man, that I may excuse my self, and say, "whilest I was a child, I spake as a childe, and I understood as a child, but being become a man, I retracted those things which I did being a boy, and in my book of the vanity and uncertainty of Sciences I did for the most part retract this book." But here haply you may blame me again, saying, "Behold thou being a youth didst write, and now being old hast retracted it; what therefore hast thou set forth?" I confess whilst I was very yong [young], I set upon the writing of these books, but, hoping that I should set them forth with corrections and enlargements, and for that cause I gave them to Tritemius [Trithemius] a Neapolitanian Abbot, formerly a Spanhemensian, a man very industrious after secret things. But it happened afterwards, that the work being intercepted, before I finished it, it was carryed about imperfect, and impolished, and did fly abroad in Italy, in France, in Germany through many mens hands, and some men, whether more impatiently, or imprudently, I know not, would have put it thus imperfect to the press, with which mischeif [mischief], I being affected, determined to set it forth my self, thinking that there might be less danger if these books came out of my hands with some amendments, thwn to come forth torn, and in fragments out of other mens hands. Moreover, I thought it no crime if I should not suffer the testimony of my youth to perish. Also we have added some Chapters, and we inserted many things, which did seem unfit to pass by, which the curious Reader shall be able to understand by the inequality of the very phrase; for we were unwilling to begin the work anew, and to unravell all that we had done, but to correct it, and put some flourish upon it. Wherefore now I pray thee, Curteous [courteous] Reader, again, weigh not these things according to the present time of setting them forth, but pardon my curious youth, if thou shalt findd any thing in them that may displease thee.  (Agrippa to the Reader, Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

I analyze it in considerable detail here:

 

[TBOPB1C00] Agrippa Book One Introduction

 

Where I address most of the issues that I have bolded above as best as I can in a forum format.

 

As far as Plato goes, you have probably never heard that he was the Son of Apollo born of a virgin, nor about his third eye.

 

Regarding his virgin birth:

 

Legends

 

According to certain fabulous reports of ancient writers, Plato's mother became pregnant from a divine vision: Ariston tried to force his attentions on Perictione, but failed of his purpose; then the ancient Greek god Apollo appeared to him in a vision, and, as a result of it, Ariston left Perictione unmolested. When she had given birth to Plato, only then did her husband lie with her. (The Early LIfe of Plato on Wikipedia, Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

Does any of that sound familiar?  Oh yeah, that Jewish carpenter fellow.

 

The earliest extant source for his virgin birth account is Apueius of Madauros a Second Century CE Middle Platonist, who among other things was prosecuted for practicing magic:

 

Prosecution for Magic

 

When Apuleius had completed his stay in Athens, about 156 CE, and was on his way to visit Alexandria, he was introduced to Pudentilla, a wealthy widow somewhat older than himself, and they married. Some of her relatives, who were probably afraid of losing control of her money, brought a charge of sorcery against Apuleius, alleging that he had seduced Pudentilla by magic. This was a serious charge, for sorcery was punishable by death.

 

Apparently he was acquitted, and his Defense (Apologia) is a valuable source of information about ancient magical practices for, ironically, in the process of his defense he displays considerable knowledge of magic. (Indeed, Defense is a comparatively recent title; all the manuscripts call it some variant of On Magic.) His says that he is a philosopher, and that philosophers and magicians engage in superficially similar practices (e.g. collecting plants and animals), but for different purposes. He ridicules his accusers for their ignorance of philosophy and for their impious confusion of religious ritual with magic. Overall, it is a masterful rhetorical display (perhaps thanks to some rewriting after the trial).

 

He was acquitted, but was he guilty? As his Defense argues, he had little need of love spells, but that does not prove that he did not practice magic. (St. Augustine considered Apuleius and Apollonius of Tyana to be "threats to the faith" because they were reputed to have performed miracles comparable to Christ's.) He is also generally credited with translating and adapting the Asclepius, a well-known Hermetic text. In particular, it is not implausible that Apuleius practiced theurgy: ritual techniques for union with the gods, which were popular with later Platonists and can be traced to his time. Theurgical and magical techniques are superficially similar, for they both depend on symbolic associations and make use of objects, incantations, etc. for their symbolic value.  (Apuleius of Madauros by Bruce J. MacLennan , Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

Plato's third eye is mentioned by Clement of Alexandria, and is the subject of an essay by the Renaissance Platonist Marsilio Ficino, about which Michael J. B. Allen writes Here:

 

Marsilio Ficino on Plato's Pythagorean Eye

 

Returning to the topic at hand which is longevity i do not seem to remember that any of the classic magicians was involved with extending the human longevity beyond ordinary. There is a mention that Apollonius of Tyana underwent heavenly assumption.^[13]; and Empedocles rejuvenating the old; but thats about it. It seems that longevity was not of interest in classical times.

 

The point of ancient philosophical magic was rather more in line with the Religious Daoist's teachings regarding becoming a deified immortal free from reincarnation, rather than life extension, but that did not stop there from being a Western Alchemy with many similarities to Eastern alchemy, that was well established in the Hellenistic period.

 

As should seem clear from the above, I could go on and on, but I have taken up enough space here and given a thumbnail sketch which I hope is helpful.

[Dainin]

Note to Shanlung: Just in case you didn't know, the modern meaning of epicurean as referring to licentious hedonism is real distortion of the ideas of the Greek philosopher Epicurus, who advocated a lifestyle of simplicity and moderation, not unlike a Taoist.

[shanlung]

Note to Shanlung: Just in case you didn't know, the modern meaning of epicurean as referring to licentious hedonism is real distortion of the ideas of the Greek philosopher Epicurus, who advocated a lifestyle of simplicity and moderation, not unlike a Taoist.

 

 

That I do know.

 

Words and ideas being transmogrified appeared to be an in-thing especially with New Age Taoism or Whatever is the current flavour.

 

One thing that carried from the early days of Laotze is the creation of straw dogs or straw man which seemed to be eternal in its uses to booster any arguments.

 

Idiotic Taoist

[Michael Sternbach]

While the classic philosophers may not have talked about physical immortality per say, there is a text On Longevity and Shortness of Life by Aristotle

 

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/longev_short.html

 

where in part 5, we read:

 

This is why salacious animals and those abounding in seed age quickly; the seed is a residue, and further, by being lost, it produces dryness. Hence the mule lives longer than either the horse or the ass from which it sprang, and females live longer than males if the males are salacious.

 

This parallel to Daoist Alchemy is quite remarkable!

 

Later, the blessings bestowed upon one who is in possession of  the Philosopher's Stone were occasionally described by Aristotle's three prerequisites for happiness: Health, wealth, and wisdom. This list was indeed sometimes extended by longevity or even physical immortality (Artephius, Paracelsus, Nicholas Flamel, Count of Saint Germain).

Edited December 1, 2015 by Michael Sternbach