This is an excerpt of a news article published on fake-news-articles-so-superfake.com on the 8th of October, 2021.
For many years the consensus of historical scholarship assumed that the great philosophical traditions of east and west developed for the most part independently, with minimal or no contact with one another. This alleged independence though plausible, seemed puzzling in light of the great similar trajectories of so many of the world’s greatest civilizations. As Jasper famously termed this period of history: “The auxiliary age”, all of these civilizations ~2500 years ago have gone on a fundamental philosophical, or rather psycho-cultural, transformation. It was during that time that each of the great thinkers of Greece, India, and China, shifted from viewing the world primarily through a narrative-mythical perspective (“Mythos”) to viewing the world more directly, and more consciously, more explicitly – as philosophers do (“Logos”). They all began asking, almost simultaneously: “what is the good life?”.
Recent historical manuscripts have been uncovered that may call into question this cultural “independence hypothesis”. These documents may be one of the greatest findings of the century, comparable only to the findings of the dead sea scrolls. It seems that Epicurus, the philosopher often referred to as the first true stoic, was, in fact, exchanging letters with two particular correspondences from afar. These letters seemed to have been addressed to one “Siddhartha Gautama” of Nepal, and another: “Lau-tze” of Chu. More incredible than Epicurus’s letters to two of the greatest influencers of the Eastern tradition, is that they responded to him. All these documents have now been found in a deserted Taoist temple, that has miraculously survived Mao’s cultural revolution. Thus, it may seem that Stoicism, Buddhism, and Taoism have been more closely in their birth and origin than it has ever been previously thought.
The 3 unedited translated versions of the letters are presented here for the first time since their discovery, beginning chronologically with Epicurus, to Buddha, to Lau-tze.
The First Letter signed by Epicurus (known to many as the founder of Stoicism)
Dear Siddhartha Gautama, Dear Lau-tze,
I feel fortunate to have had the chance to continuously ponder and reflect on the questions of the good life, of death, of misery, and of joy that you two so eloquently put forth to my mind. I feel indebted to you both, for having aided me so much, illuminating to me truths that the brightest platonic sun could not have been able to, even on the brightest of days.
Yet I write to you today, lost and confused, as so many questions still haunt me. It becomes increasingly evident to me that the gap between us is approximating infinity, much more so than the physical distance that we currently occupy. Your source of tranquility is similarly a source of true envy, which paradoxically, would never have bothered men such as yourselves. Standing next to you two, as we did together near the rivers of the Yang and the air-thin mountains of Tibet, I cannot help but feel that you two have reached such a rare state of serenity so unlike any person I have come to know during my life, including myself and as well as the wisest men of Greece. It’s as if you two are made of the most reliably sturdy wood, been well-rooted in the earth you inhabit, while been light as the raindrop descending from above, uncaring where or how you may land.
I am writing to know in the hopes of coming only a bit closer to that state of paradoxical tranquility. I will begin by raising the contentions I had then during our conversations, and still do have today, with your teachings and beliefs, your approach to the good life, your “way” and your “Eightfold Path”. I hope that by raising these questions, asking you two may put my mind to rest, so when I do finish writing and sharing my own works with the people here up-west, I will be most informed, or at the very least, wiser than I am at presently. Finally, despite my hesitations, I will comply with your requests: I will mention neither of you by name, not your invaluable influence on my thought, nor our joint travels and cherished memories. That would be a forgotten history, unmentioned and unknown, because as you have said: “it is simply irrelevant”.
First, I must begin with the notion of “nature” you two addressed in our conversations, specifically its relation to the good life. I find it difficult to understand how one may discover one’s nature, or rather “buddha nature”, and how this discovery is related to nature “outside” which exists unconcerned with human activity. I should preface my query, noting that still the notion of “nature” as guiding the good life, still remains foreign to me. That is to say, I am only interested in the nature of man, much less than that of the savage, barbarian, or animal inhabiting the wilds and forests. I know you two to have spent a considerable time in the woods nearing your homes, observing respectfully the variety of exitance unfolding, from the magnificence of the eagle to the earthworm scrambling in the dirt. I fail to see how these lowly manifestations may or should direct human conduct since it still seems to me clear that human is of more noble character.
Moreover, I am in agreement with Aristotle’s claim that man, unlike his mammalian counterparts, is uniquely different in that that he is the “social animal”, the rational and political animal, it is only he who carries a capacity for thought and speech which distinguish him above the others of the animal kingdom. This must be, I have always assumed, the most primary of human attributes and thus the most natural to him. Thus, it seems only natural to conclude that if a bird’s nature is to fly, and a fish’s nature is to swim then man’s nature, man’s way and path, is that of speech. Yet despite that, you two, albeit to different degrees, have come to subvert the notion of both speech and rationality, claiming that these are neither useful nor natural.
I recall you two attempting to convince me that our focus on breath, or quiet sitting, is more closely aligned to one’s nature than the very philosophical exchange we are currently pursuing! Explain to me, as if I were a kid needing of a wise tutor, what is this nature you speak of, what is it both when you refer to it as “outside” of man as well as “inside” of him, and no less important – what is this relationship between the two? I believe hearing your answers may be of great use to me during my current state of confusion.
The second question is concerning the notion of “attachment”. Throughout our previous discourses, it seemed to me that you were too quickly dismissive of this all-too-human trait. Attachment is one of the greatest beauties life bestows upon us, yet you two consistently berate it as a foolish tendency, which is both childish and distorting of the natural state of things. Explain to me, have you never loved a person as to have been willing to give up the world itself for this person’s continued contentment? Have you not been in a position so intertwined in your being with another, that the contours separating you from them cease to exist, where for certain distinct moments, the two become the one? These moments, though as you love to point, ultimately entail suffering, seem to me to be so inseparable from what it is to be human. Even if, as you say, attachment may be truly severed, as to never affect one’s heart and being, should we wish such a world upon our fellow men? A world excluding attachment? What would love mean in such a world? What would the merge of man and woman be like if it is only one of detachment? Without the connection to tie us with the other, aren’t we loose enough to slowly dwindle and perish?
I am eagerly waiting for your response, though I am aware it may be a long time since such letters would make the journey to your homes in the far east.
Yours truly, still, holding on to some wine in my hand,
Epicurus
The Second Letter signed by Siddhartha Gautama
Dear Epicurus, Dear Lau-tze,
How I laughed reading your letter young Epicurus! Such a mind! Such a will! Yet it is this great mind and great will which are the very source of your suffering, these are what trouble you so, as you are still concerned with that which is not of concern. Did you forget the breathing techniques I have taught you? It is true you’ve never seemed to be too taken with such exercises, yet I must urge you, lovingly, that it is about the practice not theory. It’s doing not thinking.
It’s as if you see the paradise island ahead of you, yet you are separated by a river. In order to get to the island, you must swim to get to the other side. No amount of thinking – how nice it must be on that island, how I wish I would be on that island. The only way to get there is to swim, and the only person who can do the swimming is you. Not me, and not our friend Lau-tze. You are in charge of your own suffering, only you can stop your own misery, because as I said, and I know you know – suffering only comes from within, not from without.
So, all I urge you do is breath young Epicurus, breath wide and well, focus on your breathing, make sure to have sīla, then work on samādhi, until you may finally achieve paññā. Do not write, do not think, do not do what I am sure you are doing, as you suggest in your letter. Simply observe. Watch as emotions and thoughts arise and fall, change and shift. Do not change, do not be active, do not assume the pain to be bad or the pleasure to be good. Just be, be, and from being will come your wisdom.
I will answer your question, not because this understanding will be sufficient or clear, but it may allow you to refocus on what is more important – the bodily sensations, the experience in it of itself. I wish to answer your question then, only very briefly. The nature of the inside is what is there within, the nature of the outside is what is there outside. It is not of a specific sort and should only require to be simply looked upon. Looking is not seeing, and observing is not looking. Only once truly observing, through enlightened eyes, one may come to understand that what seems to be out there and what seems to be inside, are but one. The difference is no more than the fiction, not much different from the funny stories you told us of Odysseus and Achilles. They do not exist in reality, but only in mind. It is in enlightenment that the fiction is seeing for what it is, and the separation of inside and outside, of the deep breath and the humming of the bird, become one.
As for attachment, I understand your misfortune, your confusion, and your frustration, you think that I too have been struggling to let go of what is most close, what is most cherished? There is little as difficult as losing attachment to the other. Yet this contradiction, this unwanted negation you seem to fear so much is but a false pretense. For true love does not come from a place of fear, but rather of compassion, not of being scared to lose, but be loving in the knowledge of happiness. Attachment is not pure love, for it is done in my name of one’s own wanting, own needs, it does not depend truly on the other’s well-being and happiness. Compassion may be cultivated, love without attachment, the truest form of love, of the highest value, of most profound importance, may be achieved by the practice of Metta, or simply, love and kindness. That should be enough, now go back to sitting.
Sending love and compassion from far far away,
Siddhartha Gautama
The Third Letter signed by Lau-tze
Dear Siddhartha, Dear Epicurus,
The Tao that may be spoken of is not the eternal Tao
The name that may be named is not the eternal name.
The question of nature is false and misled
Just as the question of speech is poorly construed
The eternal block rests, the frozen lakes sleeps
The leaf at the wind flies yet one on the tree, remains
To be in nature just follow the Tao
Cultivate the te
Be in what is most low
And exist without doing
Attachment is an act of evil hidden well
I ask again: What is the distance between good and bad?
And so what is the distance of love and hate?
It is best to be in the Tao
As the baby does not love but is quiet
Not needing more than what is needed
Not taking more than what must be taken
That is the true way of the person of Te
Here, near the lake, Lau-tze