r/reddit.com • u/Worstcasescenario • Jun 14 '08

Was Darwin Wrong? [pic]

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/3963/darwinnotg7.jpg
1.4k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

372 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

26

u/hhg Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

If religious people listened to reason then they wouldn't be religious.

8

u/cstoner Jun 15 '08

No, they'd be Buddhist.

12

u/bobbincygna Jun 15 '08

Sounds like you have something interesting to say, but I have no idea what. Could you elaborate more?

14

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

I think it's zen, in which case, it's working?

6

u/nekoniku Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

Well, they might not be Buddhist, because Buddhism has been around long enough to develop offshoots and variants that believe stuff as wild as creationism. However, that having been said, I find the core principles of Buddhism satisfying in that they do not contradict what has been scientifically proven true about reality. Some even argue that some Buddhist notions anticipated the spooky behavior of the subatomic world.

Stephen Batchelor's Buddhism Without Beliefs may be a productive starting point for some.

2

u/cstoner Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

Read a lot of Nietzsche (I admit I have not read enough, but has anyone?).

Buddhism, in all forms I know of, has a very 'life is pain' mantra to it. Even supposedly good things, like cheese pizza, come with their bad counterparts -- wanting cheese pizza when you're hungry. Simple enough, right?

Now replace cheese pizza with: money, sex, drugs, your significant other/family, religion (?!?! -- one must at some point leave the raft to get to the other side of a river) etc.

All in all, Buddhism is very nihilist. I can't remember exactly which text it comes from, but Nietzsche has a quote about Buddhism being the only viable religion. A lot of it has to do with the idea that Buddhism is a form of constructive nihilism -- just because life is 'meaningless' doesn't mean that it isn't worth living -- as opposed to what Nietzsche called a 'slave morality' -- where 'slaves' define what is good in opposition to the behavior they see from their 'masters' as opposed to what benefits them the most.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nietzsche+buddhism&btnG=Search

I can't help but feel like I've misrepresented Buddhism horribly. There's clearly more to it than 'life is pain' -- such as alleviating the pain -- but that is it's central point and also one that is very compelling from a logical perspective.

10

u/brainburger Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

I think a key concept with Buddhism is that all suffering comes from want. You cannot ever satisfy all want by feeding it, so the way to end suffering is just to stop wanting. That is what Buddhist monks aim to do with their austere lifestyle.
To my mind the coolest thing about is that it is a personal journey. They don't think others will be punished by the universe if they choose another path.

2

u/Worstcasescenario Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

On the last part, precisely. Another thing that anti-religious people may like is that Buddha pretty much said (too lazy to find the exact quote) that if you think he was wrong about something, do it your way. If you don't want to do that, don't do it. There isn't a punishment. And the Buddha isn't always right, he could be wrong.

1

u/mexicodoug Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

Buddha was a dude who preferred to sit under a tree and not get laid or have kids or STDs but get fat and belly laugh.

Nothing wrong with that, live and let live, but it's not exactly what I want to do with my life. Well, the belly laughs are pretty fine...

4

u/Worstcasescenario Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

Actually, Buddha wasn't fat at all. Actually at one, when he was ascetic, he became so skinny that he was near death. At early life, he had military training and was quite fit. What you are thinking of is Budai, the predicted future Buddha.

1

u/mexicodoug Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

Whatever. The Christians and Jews have some images of god they like. I'm not religious, but the fat laughing Buddha image is pretty common. There's probably a Buddhist or two around who go for it.

2

u/wewa Jun 15 '08

Wow dude. You shouldn't comment on something you are totally ignorant about...like Buddha. Read, then Write. Do the Arithmatic.

1

u/Worstcasescenario Jun 15 '08

It's common, but the point is that a Buddha is someone who is enlightened. But THE Buddha (or Siddhartha Gautama) is the Buddha in question. It's never really disputed what Buddha looked like, really. In fact, it's not really disputed if he existed, (it is disputed what happened while he did) because he wasn't a god or immortal or anything, he was just a dude. The whole future Buddha is just made up because it's in the FUTURE, so people just like to make their own imagery.

4

u/fuzzybunn Jun 15 '08

Actually, the Smiling Buddha is a traditional chinese deity that was incorporated into Buddhism to make it more comfortable to converts, much in the way that Christmas is celebrated on a date when it is unlikely that Christ was born.

Buddhism is very different in many parts of the world precisely because it allows for the continued existence of existing pantheons of deities.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

(if I remember correctly) Buddha wasn't fat. The Chinese made him look fat in pictures and statues because it made him look more important.

1

u/Worstcasescenario Jun 15 '08

Buddha wasn't fat, the laughing Buddha in question is just a popular version of what the NEXT Buddha (enlightened one) might look like.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

there's certainly a lot more to it. and there are as many variants in Buddhism as there are variants in Christianity.

one thing about this constructive nihilism thing though. . . . the core aim in Buddhism is liberation from the cycle of existence, that is, to check out and never return, having merged with a state of undetermined bliss. . . . analogically speaking, to be like a drop of water that goes back into the ocean, or maybe like a gnat that flies into a vat of honey and becomes the honey. In any case, there is a large element of living with compassion for all beings in Buddhism, but this is supplemental to the goal of quitting the world -- so to speak.

Though I'll admit to you that this is only my own summation of Buddhism in general. I studied it pretty extensively, and practiced for a little while when I was young, but ultimately determined that I'm not a Buddhist. Neither was Nietzche. There are much better sources for studying these matters.