user-1: Is there any thing that Buddhism can add to a Stoic Pursuit?  
Below is a friendly laid-back discourse between a Stoic and a Buddhist, which could be used as a guide to what I’m trying to compare. 
Buddhist:  Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are suffering; association with the unbeloved is suffering; separation from the loved is suffering; not getting what is wanted is suffering. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are suffering.
Stoic: Yes, if you attach yourself to what is not given you will sure suffer. These five aggregates you counted must have been something not in your power. Have you nothing which is in your own power, which depends on yourself only and cannot be taken from you, or have you any thing of the kind?
Buddhist: what do you mean, there are only five aggregates there is no I or mine 
Stoic: what? Is any man able to make you assent to that which is false or compel you to desire what you do not wish?
Buddhist: No 
Stoic: In the matter of assent and desire then you are free from hindrance and obstruction? 
Buddhist: Yes
Stoic: So, if we let go of the body which is subject to revolution of the whole and withdraw from externals, turns to our will to exercise it and to improve it by labor, so as to make it conformable to nature, elevated, free, unrestrained, unimpeded, faithful, modest, and virtuous will we not achieve tranquility and avoid suffering.
Buddhist:  Well said, training an act of will is a noble did, but until you learn that there is no “I or my-self” you would remain in cycle of rebirth. 
Stoic: what do you mean?
Buddhist: But what is that you call my-self or I? 
Stoic: Sir, it’s my soul. If you ask me what is a soul I can’t say this or that, but I have just told you an attribute of mine which is not bound by suffering. Will you be kind enough to show me that my act of will is not mine?
Buddhist: If that you call mine is the volitional formation you should know that it has ignorance as conditions and he who assume volition to be the self will surely be afflicted in mind.
Stoic: I do not understand, you seem to me to be talking very obscure, you surly do not mean that the all wise will not act?
Buddhist: No, I’m saying you should not say volition is mine.
Stoic: Why?
Buddhist: Perhaps you will understand if you look at it from another angle. Answer my question, by acting virtuously and by wisdom you are training the will towards the good?
Stoic: Yes
Buddhist: When the will become all virtuous, all wise and attain the good with no trace of ignorance will you claim that all wise will to be yours.
Stoic: Far from it, there is but only one wise. If at all possible to reach of what you speak without quitting the body then the act of will be one with the one.
HE

user12129: Stoicism says that if you are suffering it is within your power to change your internal interpretation of the situation. I don't know much about Buddhism, but if most of life is suffering, then there is the opportunity to adjust your perspective in most of your life. 

user14021: Stoicism is straight to the point, which is nice, but Buddhism covers a bit more territory.  Also, Stoicism requires less etymology to understand.
There are a few kinds of attachments that cause mental anguish.  Buddhism attempts to end all forms of this, plus increase insight and awareness, and allow one to experience different mental states, like jhanas.
So, for example, if someone insults Jane, an all too often reaction is for her to defend her identity, her values, what she owns, and what she thinks she is.  This creates a lot of unnecessary stress, and this defensiveness can turn into an argument.
Buddhism aims to increase empathy and compassion, decreasing conflict:  By understanding ourselves we understand the world better.  This in turn removes conflict and ill-will, removing unnecessary stress.
Buddhism aims to remove mana, which is a kind of comparison that creates jealousy and hurt.
Eventually Buddhism overlaps with Stoicism, removing quite a bit of attachment.  However, as far as I can tell that's where Stoicism mostly begins and ends.  Buddhism gets to the point where new attachment is not created, so that there is no future suffering.  However, I haven't seen anywhere in Stoicism going this far, only dissolving attachment once the suffering has started.
All in all, Stoicism and Buddhism do overlap, but Stoicism is a bit of a blip on the map.

-1: <p>Is there any thing that Buddhism can add to a Stoic Pursuit?  </p>

<p>Below is a friendly laid-back discourse between a Stoic and a Buddhist, which could be used as a guide to what I’m trying to compare. </p>

<p>Buddhist:  <em>Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, &amp; despair are suffering; association with the unbeloved is suffering; separation from the loved is suffering; not getting what is wanted is suffering. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are suffering.</em></p>

<p>Stoic: <em>Yes, if you attach yourself to what is not given you will sure suffer. These five aggregates you counted must have been something not in your power. Have you nothing which is in your own power, which depends on yourself only and cannot be taken from you, or have you any thing of the kind?</em></p>

<p>Buddhist: <em>what do you mean, there are only five aggregates there is no I or mine</em> </p>

<p>Stoic: <em>what? Is any man able to make you assent to that which is false or compel you to desire what you do not wish?</em></p>

<p>Buddhist: <em>No</em> </p>

<p>Stoic: <em>In the matter of assent and desire then you are free from hindrance and obstruction?</em> </p>

<p>Buddhist: <em>Yes</em></p>

<p>Stoic: <em>So, if we let go of the body which is subject to revolution of the whole and withdraw from externals, turns to our will to exercise it and to improve it by labor, so as to make it conformable to nature, elevated, free, unrestrained, unimpeded, faithful, modest, and virtuous will we not achieve tranquility and avoid suffering.</em></p>

<p>Buddhist:  <em>Well said, training an act of will is a noble did, but until you learn that there is no “I or my-self” you would remain in cycle of rebirth.</em> </p>

<p>Stoic: <em>what do you mean?</em></p>

<p>Buddhist: <em>But what is that you call my-self or I?</em> </p>

<p>Stoic: <em>Sir, it’s my soul. If you ask me what is a soul I can’t say this or that, but I have just told you an attribute of mine which is not bound by suffering. Will you be kind enough to show me that my act of will is not mine?</em></p>

<p>Buddhist: <em>If that you call mine is the volitional formation you should know that it has ignorance as conditions and he who assume volition to be the self will surely be afflicted in mind.</em></p>

<p>Stoic: <em>I do not understand, you seem to me to be talking very obscure, you surly do not mean that the all wise will not act?</em></p>

<p>Buddhist: <em>No, I’m saying you should not say volition is mine.</em></p>

<p>Stoic: <em>Why?</em></p>

<p>Buddhist: <em>Perhaps you will understand if you look at it from another angle. Answer my question, by acting virtuously and by wisdom you are training the will towards the good?</em></p>

<p>Stoic: <em>Yes</em></p>

<p>Buddhist: <em>When the will become all virtuous, all wise and attain the good with no trace of ignorance will you claim that all wise will to be yours.</em></p>

<p>Stoic: <em>Far from it, there is but only one wise. If at all possible to reach of what you speak without quitting the body then the act of will be one with the one.</em></p>

<p>HE</p>
 12129: <p>Stoicism says that if you are suffering it is within your power to change your internal interpretation of the situation. I don't know much about Buddhism, but if most of life is suffering, then there is the opportunity to adjust your perspective in most of your life. </p>
 14021: <p>Stoicism is straight to the point, which is nice, but Buddhism covers a bit more territory.  Also, Stoicism requires less etymology to understand.</p>

<p>There are a few kinds of attachments that cause mental anguish.  Buddhism attempts to end all forms of this, plus increase insight and awareness, and allow one to experience different mental states, like jhanas.</p>

<p>So, for example, if someone insults Jane, an all too often reaction is for her to defend her identity, her values, what she owns, and what she thinks she is.  This creates a lot of unnecessary stress, and this defensiveness can turn into an argument.</p>

<p>Buddhism aims to increase empathy and compassion, decreasing conflict:  By understanding ourselves we understand the world better.  This in turn removes conflict and ill-will, removing unnecessary stress.</p>

<p>Buddhism aims to remove mana, which is a kind of comparison that creates jealousy and hurt.</p>

<p>Eventually Buddhism overlaps with Stoicism, removing quite a bit of attachment.  However, as far as I can tell that's where Stoicism mostly begins and ends.  Buddhism gets to the point where new attachment is not created, so that there is no future suffering.  However, I haven't seen anywhere in Stoicism going this far, only dissolving attachment once the suffering has started.</p>

<p>All in all, Stoicism and Buddhism do overlap, but Stoicism is a bit of a blip on the map.</p>
