Opening Post On Distinguishing Epicurean Philosophy from Buddhism

The best place to start this discussion objectively is with the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism. These are among the most fundamental doctrines of Buddhism.

THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS

The truth of suffering

The truth of the cause of suffering

The truth of the end of suffering

The truth of the path to the end of suffering (the eightfold path)

THE NOBLE EIGHTFOLD PATH

Right understanding (of the four noble truths, for one)

Right intention

Right speech

Right action

Right livelihood

Right effort

Right mindfulness

Right concentration

My understanding is that desire/clinging/attachment is one of the causes of suffering in Buddhism. Possibly you could compare this to unnatural and unnecessary desires, but I don’t think that would be completely accurate. Desire/clinging/attachment is more about clinging to things which are impermanent. It is also about clinging to the self, which is considered an illusion. This aligns to some degree with “don’t fear death” in EP. So there are overlapping or related concepts common to both philosophies, but how the concepts fit into the big pictures seems to be quite different.

the end in B. is nirvana, which means "extinction" (of the fires of desire)

this is confused / and not the same as with sukkha (bliss, delight, pleasure), which is the opposite of dukkha (suffering, dissatisfaction, existential angst), which is the problem that Buddha was attempting to solve. Because sukkha is the opposite of dukkha, it's often thought of as "the end" (and in Nichiren Buddhism it is).

I also think it's fair for someone who wants to delve in the differences in doctrine to consider to what extent the upayas (= efficient means) of the Buddhists can serve Epicurean ends--because many of them do, and a blind dismissal of them comes off as insincere, impractical, fanatical and uninformed. Do we want pleasure or not, and do we consider it worthy of cultivation? If we do, we will study the means to it diligently and not dismiss the means because they are not the end.

It is clear that both in Epicurean philosophy, as well as in scientific studies, and in many other (secular or religious) wisdom traditions (like Buddhism, and also hygge, sumac kawsay, etc.), there are many upayas / efficient means that lead to a life of pleasure. The clear designation of these as "means" helps to not confuse the issue.

The Four Noble Truths and eightfold path are universally known as the core of Buddhist teaching. You can quickly search them online or on youtube and learn more.

My understanding is that they are considered to have been part of one of Buddha's first teachings and transmitted orally after that, until they were eventually written down. However this wikipedia article provides much more detail than I was aware of, both as to their origin and to their centrality in various branches of Buddhism:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

Yes, after Siddhartha Buddha attained nirvana under the Bodhi tree, he touched the ground (a symbol of his vow to benefit innumerable sentient beings on Earth, rather than keep his insights to himself).

He then went to the Benares deer park, and there he started preaching his first enlightened sermon, which was on the four noble truths to his first disciples.

As for feeling / desires, yes the doctrine is more ascetic than EP and there's no hierarchy of desires (natural and necessary), instead it seems that all desire is dissatisfaction / dukkha.

Buddhism isn't against feeling by any means and the goal isn't to suppress or terminate feeling. The goal is enlightenment/nirvana, which involves a sense of connectedness/oneness with all beings and a sense of joy.

Desire, however, is to be understood and ended. A nuance of eliminating desire is that if you understand yourself as being one with all things, then there is nothing to desire. So the Buddhist approach to desire is quite different from that of EP, where it is (to my current understanding) worked with as a means to focus the pursuit of pleasure on the life-enhancing varieties.

It would only be an incidental byproduct of other activities and not something to be sought after or desired (since one should be getting rid of desire). For example meditation, enlightenment, or helping an old lady across the street may bring pleasure. But they are to be done because they are what needs to be done. If they bring pleasure, there's no reason not to enjoy that pleasure but it shouldn't be dwelled upon and the activities aren't done for the reward of the pleasure.

That sounds pretty dry. There's plenty of pleasure in B, but theoretically it's achieved under these conditions.