Both of the ways of life show similarities; both favor austerity and thoughtfulness, pursuit of quality in all doings and virtue. Both believe in the natural turn of things, here, however lies the biggest difference. Stoics distinguish things that are right, wrong and neutral, leaving very little gray area between them. Someone is either virtuous sage, or a burr, sadly this has very exclusive and aristocratic overtone. Also, as we all know, and Zen Buddhism supports, things are not black, or white, the judgement depends on point of view. Someone's garbage is another persons' treasure; just look at archeologists, psychosatrists, lawyers, or soldiers.
We can learn many noble things by studying stoics, some are great heroes of mine, but we must be forwarned about following the absolute truths and virtues, to understand this we may look at the shameful history of Christianity with the Holly Inquisition and more recent persecution and elimination of native religions around the World. Look at other religions that convert the infidels with the sword and fire and maintain its power by keeping the faithul in medival ignorance. We don't have to look too far as our current President Bush is the best example that "we are good, they are bad" might have worked well for the tribal chief, or football coach, but does not score us any cool points in the World. As the side note, Bush is also a great example of why we should separate religion from government, I shall not vote for anybody who considers beliefs anything more than a private and personal matter. Quality and virtue of stoics are still worth and noble goal everyone should strive for, but it is the "way" of living, not some ultimate truth.
