Two Lectures by Musonius,
The Stoic Sage of Ancient Rome
Musonius Rufus
An Editorial Note:
Musonius Rufus, the Stoic, was one of the great
philosophers of ancient Rome and belongs in the personal library of every earnest
theosophist. He concentrated his attention on ethics, or “right living”, which is
an enduring foundation for any real knowledge of esoteric philosophy.
The following transcriptions of two of his talks - numbers V and VI -
are available online.[1] Other versions
of the same transcriptions are available in a little known book. [2] The original titles of the translations and transcriptions
are given below.
(Carlos Cardoso Aveline)
1. Which is
More Effective, Theory or Practice?
(....) The problem
arose among us whether for the acquisition of virtue practice or theory is more
effective, understanding that theory teaches what is right conduct, while practice represents the habit of those
accustomed to act in accordance with such theory. To Musonius, practice seemed
to be more effective, and speaking in support of his opinion, he asked one of
those present the following question:
“Suppose that there are two physicians, one able to discourse very
brilliantly about the art of medicine but having no experience in taking care
of the sick, and the other quite incapable of speaking but experienced in
treating his patients according to correct medical theory. Which one,” he
asked, “would you choose to attend you if you were ill?” He replied that he
would choose the doctor who had experience in healing.
Musonius then continued, “Well, then, let us take another example of two
men. One has sailed a great deal and served as pilot on many boats, the other
one has sailed very little and has never acted as pilot. If the one who had
never piloted a ship should speak most ably on the methods of navigation, and
the other very poorly and ineffectively, which one would you employ as pilot if
you were going on a voyage?” The man said he would take the experienced pilot.
Again Musonius said, “Take the case of two musicians. One knows the
theory of music and discourses on it most convincingly but is unable to sing or
play the harp or the lyre; the other is inferior in theory but is proficient in
playing the harp and the lyre and in singing as well. To which one would you
give a position as musician, or which one would you like to have as teacher for
a child who does not know music?” The man answered that he would choose the one
who was skilled in practice.
“Well, then,” said Musonius, “that being the case, in the matter of
temperance and self-control, is it not much better to be self-controlled and
temperate in all one’s actions than to be able to say what one ought to do?”
Here too the young man agreed that it is of less significance and importance to
speak well about self-control than to practice self-control.
Thereupon Musonius, drawing together what had been said, asked, “How,
now, in view of these conclusions, could knowledge of the theory of anything be
better than becoming accustomed to act according to the principles of the
theory, if we understand that application enables one to act, but theory makes
one capable of speaking about it? Theory which teaches how one should act is
related to application, and comes first, since it is not possible to do
anything really well unless its practical execution be in harmony with
theory. In effectiveness, however, practice takes precedence over theory
as being more influential in leading men to action.”
2. On Training
[…Musonius]
was always earnestly urging those who were associated with him to make
practical application of his teachings, using some such arguments as the
following. Virtue, he said, is not simply theoretical knowledge, but it is
practical application as well, just like the arts of medicine and music.
Therefore, as the physician and the musician not only must master the
theoretical side of their respective arts but must also train themselves to act
according to their principles, so a man who wishes to become good not only must
be thoroughly familiar with the precepts which are conducive to virtue but must
also be earnest and zealous in applying these principles.
How,
indeed, could a person immediately become temperate if he only knew that one
must not be overcome by pleasures, but was quite unpracticed in withstanding
pleasures? How could one become just
when he had learned that one must love fairness but had never exercised himself
in avoidance of selfishness and greed? How could we acquire courage if we had
merely learned that the things which seem dreadful to the average person are
not to be feared, but had no experience in showing courage in the face of such
things? How could we become prudent if
we had come to recognize what things are truly good and what evil, but had
never had practice in despising things which only seem good?
Therefore
upon the learning of the lessons appropriate to each and every excellence,
practical training must follow invariably, if indeed from the lessons we have
learned we hope to derive any benefit. And
moreover such practical exercise is the more important for the student of
philosophy than for the student of medicine or any similar art, the more
philosophy claims to be a greater and more difficult discipline than any other
study. The reason for this is that men who enter the other professions have not
had their souls corrupted beforehand and have not learned the opposite of what
they are going to be taught, but the ones who start out to study philosophy
have been born and reared in an environment filled with corruption and evil,
and therefore turn to virtue in such a state that they need a longer and more
thorough training.
How,
then, and in what manner should they receive such training? Since it so happens
that the human being is not soul alone, nor body alone, but a kind of synthesis
of the two, the person in training must take care of both, the better part, the
soul, more zealously, as is fitting, but also of the other, if he shall not be
found lacking in any part that constitutes man. For obviously the philosopher’s
body should be well prepared for physical activity, because often the virtues
make use of this as a necessary instrument for the affairs of life.
Now
there are two kinds of training, one which is appropriate for the soul alone,
and the other which is common to both soul and body. We use the training common to both when we
discipline ourselves to cold, heat, thirst, hunger, meager rations, hard beds,
avoidance of pleasures, and patience under suffering. For by these things and others like them
the body is strengthened and becomes capable of enduring hardship, sturdy and
ready for any task; the soul too is strengthened since it is trained for
courage by patience under hardship and for self-control by abstinence from pleasures.
Training
which is peculiar to the soul consists first of all in seeing that the proofs
pertaining to apparent goods as not being real goods are always ready at hand
and likewise those pertaining to apparent evils as not being real evils, and in
learning to recognize the things which are truly good and in becoming
accustomed to distinguish them from what are not truly good. In the next place it consists of practice
in not avoiding any of the things which only seem evil, and in not pursuing any
of the things which only seem good; in shunning by every means those which are
truly evil and in pursuing by every means those which are truly good.
In
summary, then, I have tried to tell what the nature of each type of training is. I shall not, however, endeavor to discuss how the training should
be carried out in detail, by analyzing and distinguishing what is appropriate
for the soul and the body in common and what is appropriate for the soul alone,
but by presenting without fixed order what is proper for each. It is true that all of us who have
participated in philosophic discussion have heard and apprehended that neither
pain nor death nor poverty nor anything else which is free from wrong is an
evil, and again that wealth, life, pleasure, or anything else which does not
partake of virtue is not a good. And
yet, in spite of understanding this, because of the depravity which has become
implanted in us straight from childhood and because of evil habits engendered
by this depravity, when hardship comes we think an evil has come upon us, and
when pleasure comes our way we think that a good has befallen us; we dread
death as the most extreme misfortune; we cling to life as the greatest
blessing, and when we give away money we grieve as if we were injured, but upon
receiving it we rejoice as if a benefit had been conferred.
Similarly
with the majority of other things, we do not meet circumstances in accordance
with right principles, but rather we follow wretched habit. Since all this is the case, the person who
is in training [to be a philosopher] must strive to habituate himself not to
love pleasure, not to avoid hardship, not to be infatuated with living, not to
fear death, and in the case of goods or money not to place receiving above
giving.
NOTES:
[1] Link: https://sites.google.com/site/thestoiclife/the_teachers/musonius-rufus.
See Lectures 5 and 6. (CCA)
[2] “Musonius Rufus”, translated by Cynthia King, with
a preface by William B. Ervine , CreateSpace, Lexington, KY, USA, 2011,
copyright 2010, 101 pp., see pp. 38-39. Another significant book is “Musonius
Rufus and Education in the Good Life”, J. T. Dillon, University Press of
America, Dallas, Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford, 2004, 101 pp. (CCA)
000
The above
text is reproduced from “The Aquarian
Theosophist”, December 2012 edition.
000
In September 2016, after
a careful analysis of the state of the esoteric movement worldwide, a group of students
decided to form the Independent Lodge of
Theosophists, whose priorities include the building of a better future in
the different dimensions of life.
000
