"To the rational being only the irrational is unendurable, but the rational is endurable." - Epictetus, Discourses

"A large part of mankind is angry not with the sins, but with the sinners." - Seneca, On Anger

"Concentrate every minute like a Roman—like a man—on doing what's in front of you with precise and genuine seriousness, tenderly, willingly, with justice. And on freeing yourself from all other distractions." - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

"As rain breaks through an ill-thatched house, passion will break through an unreflecting mind." - Siddhartha Gautama, The Dhammapada

I discovered Stoicism when I was 14 through Marcus Aurelius and then again through Epictetus and Seneca when I hit high school but didn't really take what they said seriously until college. I even advocated, in rebellion to my Catholic schooling, a Christianized Stoicism, feigning ignorance that Justus Lipsius attempted this with Neostoicism, and that many Christian intellectuals prior to him attempted the same thing. Buddhism always interested me but I could never understand the technical jargon (and still can't, as Mahayana Buddhism is interesting but hard to understand coming from a western religious and philosophical background; Theravada Buddhism I find easier to understand). Early Buddhism, what I see as Philosophical Buddhism to distinguish this from the religious denominations of Buddhism, interests me because of its similarities to Stoicism. I want to summarize the similarities between both in few points:

1. Both Stoicism and Buddhism emphasize ethical principles and the cultivation of virtuous behavior. Stoicism encourages individuals to live in accordance with reason and virtue, making the cardinal virtues of wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance very important, while Buddhism promotes ethical conduct as a fundamental aspect of the Eightfold Path.

2. Both philosophies advocate for mindfulness and inner peace. Stoicism teaches individuals to accept what they cannot control and find tranquility within, irrespective of external circumstances. Buddhism, particularly in the practice of meditation, aims to achieve a similar state of mental clarity and equanimity. In Stoic practice the goal is apatheia, to be without suffering, and this is similar to the Buddhist idea of nirvana, liberation from suffering. The prerequisite, as I see it, for both systems of thought is to achieve a state of tranquility or mindfulness (what the Stoics call ataraxia and the Buddhists call sati).

3. Both Stoicism and Buddhism advise against excessive attachment to material possessions and the transient nature of external factors. Stoicism teaches the importance of distinguishing between what is within one's control and what is not, while Buddhism highlights the impermanence of worldly attachments as a central tenet in overcoming suffering. Compared to modern systems of thought, modern Stoics and philosophical Buddhists are (or should be) anti-materialist because extreme attachment to material things brings about suffering (what the Stoics call pathos unhealthy emotions, and the Buddhists call tanha, to thirst or crave for something).

Some of my favorite Stoics are Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Musonius Rufus, Epictetus, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius. Focusing on Early Buddhism I tend to read Buddhaghosa (although he's not really a representative of Early Buddhism he provides a great canonical way of understanding it) and the Pudgalavada, or "Personalist," school.

There is a great article in the book Religions and Trade: Religious Formation, Transformation and Cross-Cultural Exchange between East and West exploring contact between Greek and Indian society that can be found here:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1163/j.ctv2gjwxw0.9.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3A89d9f6697029acddfa16391db5d4b078&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1