Welcome admin !

It is currently Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:51 am
Pathway:  Board index General Discussion Forum and Lounge Current Events & Politics

In Defense of Antinatalism

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby another_being on Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:09 pm

Samsaric Spiral wrote:
another_being wrote:macdougdoug: "I'll just say I didn't want kids, til i became a father, but then I was no longer the same person and neither was the world."

One of the things written here that made a connection and rings true.


The world is never the same thing and you are never the same person, with or without procreating, that's the scary thing. Same applies to everyone else.

In some sense, one can say no kids were ever begotten for there is "no one" or "no thing" to have them, just change without core.


The world, myself, phenomena, changes. Is that scary?
"Just change without core." ? What is the one "thing" that doesn't change? What is core, essence? We're getting into hazy territory, but I am sympathetic to your original post. Before our first child, when I was younger, I wondered about bringing someone into this world. Even now with our children grown, I still wonder about grandkids coming into this world and what the future may bring. We don't know. There could be improvements regarding the list of ills you mention; it could get worse. It's worth working toward a sustainable future and working with a positive outlook may be more beneficial to that cause.

You wrote: "It is futile to attempt to change mankind's violent nature." I'd ask, what is our true nature? Desires to change others will be frustrating. Probably more beneficial to mind oneself.

You also wrote, "Without kids, there is a higher chance for mystical insight or "gnosis", as the Ch'an Buddhist and Gnostic Christian traditions put emphasis on." This I disagree with. There are no qualifiers for illuminating insight or gnosis.

"No one" or "no thing" to have children -- then, no "moral" or "immoral" to be discriminated. ?
"Some people think they are enlightened, some people think they are not enlightened." -- Denko
User avatar
another_being
 
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 6:21 pm

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby Samsaric Spiral on Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:21 pm

another_being wrote:
You wrote: "It is futile to attempt to change mankind's violent nature." I'd ask, what is our true nature?


A blind and self-devouring Ouroboros. I don't think it ends either with cessation of bodily processes because storehouse consciousness influences next rebirth.

"No one" or "no thing" to have children -- then, no "moral" or "immoral" to be discriminated. ?


I don't think going the moral nihilist route is the best. This rhetoric sounds like something Marquis de Sade would use to justify his chamber.

It's simple: when ethical decisions are made, we must consider consent. Newborns are not able to give consent whether or not they want to be born.

Since the future is so unknown, ask yourself whether there can be experiences that make you wish you were never born? I think this is why Dukkha is more like a "vacuum" that sucks up the 'good', hence my negative consequentialism. Dukkha permeates all organisms.
Samsaric Spiral
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:48 pm

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby another_being on Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:54 pm

Of course when I wrote "true nature" I was referring to buddhanature. But your reply gave me a chance to look up Ouroboros again. Thanks for that.

And when I wrote -- "No one" or "no thing" to have children -- then, no "moral" or "immoral" to be discriminated. ? -- I was just playing with your own statement and bringing it to bear on the ideas of morality and immorality. I wasn't suggesting a moral nihilism. If one is truly in the state where "no one" or "no thing" has been made evident, then no discriminating is likely to be undertaken, and morality and immorality might be seen as constructed ideas.

:peace:
"Some people think they are enlightened, some people think they are not enlightened." -- Denko
User avatar
another_being
 
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 6:21 pm

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby Michaeljc on Sat Oct 24, 2015 1:08 am

Ultimately, women should be entirely free to have children or not – or to decide how large a family she wants. Sadly, throughout history, and to this day, millions have had no say in the matter. I know for a fact that within my Mother’s generation most women did not want the large families of the day

Nevertheless, they devoted themselves to each and every child

Bless them

m
User avatar
Michaeljc
 
Posts: 3622
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: Raglan New Zealand

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby Samsaric Spiral on Sat Oct 24, 2015 6:01 pm

another_being wrote:If one is truly in the state where "no one" or "no thing" has been made evident, then no discriminating is likely to be undertaken, and morality and immorality might be seen as constructed ideas.


This is why a Buddhist ethics cannot exist without the belief in a rebirth after cessation of bodily function. Actions that do not harm others and compassion are encouraged for the sake of lessening grip on self for the parinirvana. Do not misconstrue what I say as indicating compassionate actions must be directed for "merit" (aka a "return of investment), but I still agree npremediated compassion actionate, wherein subject/duality break apart, is the best approach due to lessening the strength of attachments. However, ultimately the function of such action is to break from the Samsaric cycle of death and rebirth.

In more Mahayana terms, the storehouse consciousness (Ālayavijñāna) has a degree of independence from brain activity (even though it is still interrelated to it), and it influences rebirth or the sense of continuity from moment to moment. Without its proper functioning, each moment feels new. What I hypothesize is it resembles a kaleidoscopic scale of reality by which our brain continuously consolidates and retrieves fragmented images and so forth. Nobel Laureate philosopher Henri Bergson argues similar things. The point of the practice is to purify storehouse consciousness for parinirvana, and end the misery that is the ceaseless movement of life, which amounts to Dukkha.

By abandoning such a foundational belief, one risks a moral nihilism or Marquis de Sade approach towards ethics. That is, an "anything goes approach". Therefore, I take negative consequentialism to its limits by accepting these two premises 1) rebirth is always occurring even after bodily cessation, 2) the point of this practice is to end rebirth.

You may argue, "But if negative consequentialism, why not kill yourself to end misery?" This is where I come in with my type-token distinction. Ethical decisions must be considered as types that view attachment as what gives impetus in devising ethical decisions. If we view an ethical decision as isolated and having simple cause-effect relations, then that is ridiculous. As an example, shooting me in the head, without my awareness, and rationalizing it as simply "eliminating my suffering" is foolhardy because one must infer that the vantage point of my attachment theoretically proceeds it. It would bring me great suffering suffering to hypothetically reflect on that act, which the praxis of this practice must avoid. Ergo, think of attachment as also proceeding bodily functions or momentary lapses of awareness, that is what I call "type".

That was kind of dense...

Ultimately, women should be entirely free to have children or not – or to decide how large a family she wants. Sadly, throughout history, and to this day, millions have had no say in the matter


It should be the child's choice, not the mothers. Children simply come into this world and form attachments, and then they create psychological complexes to assure themselves everything okay within the system of fulfilling their desires consistently.

It is not good for the parent who wishes to break Samsaric chains because it brings more attachment and make them develop psychological deceptive techniques that helps validate selfishness for the sake of creating conducive environments for their children.

I refuse to have kids, but that doesn't mean I condemn those that do. I simply view people who call themselves Buddhists and intentionally decide to have kids as misguided. However, I respond with compassion and not condemnation.

That doesn't mean I will no persuade people not to have kids, and I will continue to use rhetoric to do so.
Samsaric Spiral
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:48 pm

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby partofit22 on Sat Oct 24, 2015 7:23 pm

Samsaric Spiral wrote:
Ultimately, women should be entirely free to have children or not – or to decide how large a family she wants. Sadly, throughout history, and to this day, millions have had no say in the matter


It should be the child's choice, not the mothers. Children simply come into this world and form attachments, and then they create psychological complexes to assure themselves everything okay within the system of fulfilling their desires consistently.

It is not good for the parent who wishes to break Samsaric chains because it brings more attachment and make them develop psychological deceptive techniques that helps validate selfishness for the sake of creating conducive environments for their children.

I refuse to have kids, but that doesn't mean I condemn those that do. I simply view people who call themselves Buddhists and intentionally decide to have kids as misguided. However, I respond with compassion and not condemnation.

That doesn't mean I will no persuade people not to have kids, and I will continue to use rhetoric to do so.


It should be the children's decision, not the mothers- But father's decision trumps the children's decision ..

Millions of years ago, a snub-nosed fish roamed the watery shelf below the continents wearing a face that had been passed down to it by countless species through deep time. That fish passed its face to amphibians, and amphibians passed it to reptiles. Reptiles passed it to mammals, and mammals passed it down in exact accordance with the dharma—from the great apes to Australopithecus, and from Australopithecus to Homo habilis, and from Homo habilis to Homo erectus, and from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens, and from Homo sapiens to Homo sapiens sapiens, who became so sapient (or “wise”) that they discarded it—or tried to. Because really, how can you throw away your face?


http://www.tricycle.com/web-exclusive/green-koans-case-12-original-face
partofit22
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby Samsaric Spiral on Sun Oct 25, 2015 8:55 pm

partofit22 wrote:It should be the children's decision, not the mothers- But father's decision trumps the children's decision ..

Millions of years ago, a snub-nosed fish roamed the watery shelf below the continents wearing a face that had been passed down to it by countless species through deep time. That fish passed its face to amphibians, and amphibians passed it to reptiles. Reptiles passed it to mammals, and mammals passed it down in exact accordance with the dharma—from the great apes to Australopithecus, and from Australopithecus to Homo habilis, and from Homo habilis to Homo erectus, and from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens, and from Homo sapiens to Homo sapiens sapiens, who became so sapient (or “wise”) that they discarded it—or tried to. Because really, how can you throw away your face?


http://www.tricycle.com/web-exclusive/green-koans-case-12-original-face


This is where the difference between Daoism and Ch'an comes into play: the former takes joy in the differential succession of masks/faces whereas the latter views the recursion of masks as dukkha. To take off the mask and no longer take part in its dance is the Buddhist goal, but the Daoist wishes to eternally juggle these masks, by drinking the "elixir of immortality".

Bringing children into life is the ultimate affirmation. It is an impediment to practice because one becomes more attached and thereby more responsible. There is no time for the Buddhist goal of Nirvana, extinction.

The extinction of all masks, of all faces, is where true peace is found. This involves fully letting go of the mask in the Mind, but this is very difficult. There are more people in life who think they've let go of the mask in the mind than those who really have, but they will be in surprise when rebirth and suffering perpetuates.
Samsaric Spiral
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:48 pm

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby fukasetsu on Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:25 am

Samsaric Spiral wrote:This is where the difference between Daoism and Ch'an comes into play: the former takes joy in the differential succession of masks/faces whereas the latter views the recursion of masks as dukkha.


There is nothing apart from the dance any notion of being out of the dance is the very dance itself, just see things as they are but beware of fabricating divisions.
Mijn Oude Vriend uit de woestijn begrijpt geen Nederlands. <3
User avatar
fukasetsu
 
Posts: 6493
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:17 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby fukasetsu on Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:28 am

Samsaric Spiral wrote:This is where the difference between Daoism and Ch'an comes into play: the former takes joy in the differential succession of masks/faces whereas the latter views the recursion of masks as dukkha.


There is nothing apart from the dance any notion of being out of the dance is the very dance itself, just see things as they are but beware of fabricating divisions.

The extinction of all masks, of all faces, is where true peace is found. This involves fully letting go of the mask in the Mind, but this is very difficult. There are more people in life who think they've let go of the mask in the mind than those who really have, but they will be in surprise when rebirth and suffering perpetuates.


Sorry but this is just hearsay from your part this is taught in the scriptures and other oral means, whether that applies or not in this dreamy format, you cannot speak for so called others just take care of yourself and don't worry about the philosophy of what happens to others.
Mijn Oude Vriend uit de woestijn begrijpt geen Nederlands. <3
User avatar
fukasetsu
 
Posts: 6493
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:17 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby Samsaric Spiral on Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:15 am

fukasetsu wrote:
Samsaric Spiral wrote:This is where the difference between Daoism and Ch'an comes into play: the former takes joy in the differential succession of masks/faces whereas the latter views the recursion of masks as dukkha.


There is nothing apart from the dance any notion of being out of the dance is the very dance itself, just see things as they are but beware of fabricating divisions.

The extinction of all masks, of all faces, is where true peace is found. This involves fully letting go of the mask in the Mind, but this is very difficult. There are more people in life who think they've let go of the mask in the mind than those who really have, but they will be in surprise when rebirth and suffering perpetuates.


Sorry but this is just hearsay from your part this is taught in the scriptures and other oral means, whether that applies or not in this dreamy format, you cannot speak for so called others just take care of yourself and don't worry about the philosophy of what happens to others.


Lankavatara Sutra pretty much validates what I'm saying.

I think modern Zen in the West has become more like Daoism. It's not a bad thing, but it has different goals. The goal of early Ch'an is the purification of the storehouse consciousness (Ālayavijñāna) for the sake of parinirvana after cessation of bodily functions. It is to end rebirth, the "cessation of perception and feelings", the ninth jhana. Stopping short at the "Dimension of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception".eighth jhana, is basically Daoism. One can live like a Daoist by "just tak[ing] care of yourself and don't worry... what happens to others", but the Bodhisattva ideal requires compassion and an ethical life (i.e., eight-fold path). However, there is still renunciation to the ceaseless flow of masks, neither an affirmation nor condemnation.

I still encourage antinatalism, Dharmic path, and so forth to people, but I never coerce. There is nothing ethically wrong with what my first post was conveying.
Samsaric Spiral
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:48 pm

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby Michaeljc on Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:14 am

I still encourage antinatalism


Yet, I sense, you have never had a child :blush:
User avatar
Michaeljc
 
Posts: 3622
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: Raglan New Zealand

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby partofit22 on Mon Oct 26, 2015 1:47 pm

Samsaric Spiral wrote:
partofit22 wrote:It should be the children's decision, not the mothers- But father's decision trumps the children's decision ..

Millions of years ago, a snub-nosed fish roamed the watery shelf below the continents wearing a face that had been passed down to it by countless species through deep time. That fish passed its face to amphibians, and amphibians passed it to reptiles. Reptiles passed it to mammals, and mammals passed it down in exact accordance with the dharma—from the great apes to Australopithecus, and from Australopithecus to Homo habilis, and from Homo habilis to Homo erectus, and from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens, and from Homo sapiens to Homo sapiens sapiens, who became so sapient (or “wise”) that they discarded it—or tried to. Because really, how can you throw away your face?


http://www.tricycle.com/web-exclusive/green-koans-case-12-original-face


This is where the difference between Daoism and Ch'an comes into play: the former takes joy in the differential succession of masks/faces whereas the latter views the recursion of masks as dukkha. To take off the mask and no longer take part in its dance is the Buddhist goal, but the Daoist wishes to eternally juggle these masks, by drinking the "elixir of immortality".

Bringing children into life is the ultimate affirmation. It is an impediment to practice because one becomes more attached and thereby more responsible. There is no time for the Buddhist goal of Nirvana, extinction.

The extinction of all masks, of all faces, is where true peace is found. This involves fully letting go of the mask in the Mind, but this is very difficult. There are more people in life who think they've let go of the mask in the mind than those who really have, but they will be in surprise when rebirth and suffering perpetuates.


When it comes to perpetuation of attachments there's also this: How knowledge is applied or isn't- There's no true face or mask to fall away from a sentient being that never came to be- And the idea not to have a child is equally free- However, the idea to defend such an idea is a mask and the desire to defend it perpetuates attachment-
partofit22
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby fukasetsu on Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:23 pm

Samsaric Spiral wrote:Lankavatara Sutra pretty much validates what I'm saying.

I think modern Zen in the West has become more like Daoism. It's not a bad thing, but it has different goals. The goal of early Ch'an is the purification of the storehouse consciousness (Ālayavijñāna) for the sake of parinirvana after cessation of bodily functions. It is to end rebirth, the "cessation of perception and feelings", the ninth jhana. Stopping short at the "Dimension of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception".eighth jhana, is basically Daoism. One can live like a Daoist by "just tak[ing] care of yourself and don't worry... what happens to others", but the Bodhisattva ideal requires compassion and an ethical life (i.e., eight-fold path). However, there is still renunciation to the ceaseless flow of masks, neither an affirmation nor condemnation.

I still encourage antinatalism, Dharmic path, and so forth to people, but I never coerce. There is nothing ethically wrong with what my first post was conveying.


My only goal (or result) of practise is uprooting the vasanas so much is clear, and too not add superfluous ingredients to the soup (of me and mine) which is directly linked to the whole "rebirth" thing. The are no errors in the scriptures but our perception of it is in error, that was my point that it ultimately is just an idea or temporary expedient and no reality, thus it needs to melt away too otherwise we just remain stuck. Daoism or Ch'an is not the point that is locking up the world in a mental picture again. Taking care of yourself and not dwell on concept or ideas and seeing things as they are means then the whole notion of others doesn't even arise, then compassion manifests naturally.
But that requires death first, all self and others should be killed without discrimination otherwise there is no great compassion possible.

I see nothing ethically wrong with your post, as I said they are just ideas depending on one's perception of existence.
Mijn Oude Vriend uit de woestijn begrijpt geen Nederlands. <3
User avatar
fukasetsu
 
Posts: 6493
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:17 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby macdougdoug on Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:23 pm

In ch'an we try to see what this clever fellow is. It is good to have well constructed beliefs, it is also good to see why we have them.
User avatar
macdougdoug
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 831
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:11 pm
Location: France

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby another_being on Mon Oct 26, 2015 8:56 pm

Maybe I'm a little dense too, but how can the child decide whether to be born or not? They're not yet born, right? Until they are. Makes me think of an angry kid stamping his feet and saying, "I wish I'd never been born!" We've probably all said it, maybe when we were 13 years old.

Suffering is. This is why Buddha decided to talk about it and the path. Such is life, birth, suffering. Joseph Campbell would not have written about the hero's' journey if it weren't this way. Each individual goes through their journey. :peace:
"Some people think they are enlightened, some people think they are not enlightened." -- Denko
User avatar
another_being
 
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 6:21 pm

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby Samsaric Spiral on Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:13 pm

another_being wrote:Maybe I'm a little dense too, but how can the child decide whether to be born or not? They're not yet born, right? Until they are. Makes me think of an angry kid stamping his feet and saying, "I wish I'd never been born!" We've probably all said it, maybe when we were 13 years old.

Suffering is. This is why Buddha decided to talk about it and the path. Such is life, birth, suffering. Joseph Campbell would not have written about the hero's' journey if it weren't this way. Each individual goes through their journey. :peace:


First off, let me ask you a question, isn't it weird that Gnostic Christian schools resembled Buddhist practice and cynical worldview and they too were antinatalists?

Well, if I live a good life and die peacefully, I'm glad to have been born since desires were somewhat consistently fulfilled. However, if I saw my loved ones killed or whatnot, then I'd wish I wasn't born. I cannot see my own future, but the thing is, immense suffering can be a vacuum to all pleasant sensation. True horror is something few of us experience in life, something like the film Michael Haneke's Funny Games. I recommend watching that film.

The point is, Dukkha permeates all sensations. Pleasant sensation does not however. This is why, for metaphorical purposes, one could view life as resembling a ceaseless undulation of the Demiurge's ichor. I recommend reading Thomas Ligotti's Nethescurial. There is something malignant and malevolent about this life.

Let me reiterate: antinatalism does not equal manslaughter, omnicide, infanticide, etc.

macdougdoug wrote:In ch'an we try to see what this clever fellow is. It is good to have well constructed beliefs, it is also good to see why we have them.


I do think something like the "Great Dying" will occur due to increasing environmental catastrophe. People will eat each other up like the film Cannibal Holocaust. We're near the end of the Kali Yuga or Dharma Ending Age.

"Here, let me give you two quotes, and I want you to think about their symbiotic relationship:

1. From the essay, "Look at the human race as a whole, and of all the horrible things that have happened. Every massacre, every child watching their parents die, every mental illness, every person tortured, etc. Now ask yourself, was the whole thing worth it?"

2. From Nietzsche's Will to Power, "If we affirm one moment, we thus affirm not only ourselves but all existence. For nothing is self-sufficient, neither in us ourselves nor in things..."

Let's say human history can be seen as both infinite suffering and infinite pleasure, and it is all reflected in this present moment. Now ask yourself, "Can there ever be enough happy people born to make the Holocaust okay if you had to choose between all or nothing?" Now consider that all these massacres, abusive childhoods, mental illnesses, and horrifying acts of war, and realize that they will all likely happen again.

I've already successfully encouraged three people in real life to become antinatalists. It's not okay that some people suffer - as a whole we're still messed up. There is something fundamentally flawed with mankind's self-consciousness, and I did go into it a bit by mentioning mankind's general creativity in torture methods. I mean, if you don't read my post fully, you won't understand what I'm talking about."
Samsaric Spiral
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:48 pm

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby macdougdoug on Tue Oct 27, 2015 11:13 am

I see what you're talking about, you have done a good job of defending antinatalism. I was just asking who is defending this world view and why must he defend it? By this question I am not asking for more good reasons to defend antinatalism, I am asking you to consider the source our fears and need for theories to defend who we are and what we believe.
You have become aware of the ills of this world, but if this awareness breeds only disgust and theories to avoid what is perceived, then we are trapped in a very small circle of our own making - the only way to open up the awareness is to confront the source : what is it that is aware, what makes the choosing (good/bad), why the need for a solution?
The revolution is in our hearts and minds, not by changing what we believe, but by understanding our need to believe.

Namaste compadre. :peace:
User avatar
macdougdoug
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 831
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:11 pm
Location: France

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby chankin1937 on Tue Oct 27, 2015 2:27 pm

Hello All,
There have been a number (five?) of mass extinctions in the history of our world. Perhaps there is another looming up in the future! If so, problem solved! :)
I too see no future for the human race if it continues along the present path.
Not that that is important.
The “life” of the universe is the birth and death of stars and galaxies.
Of course, being human, we see this thin film of biological life on the surface of a tiny ball of rock orbiting a mid range star on the fringes of one galaxy among myriads as important. It is not.
However we are here for the moment and should do our best to make the most of it.
As for how we do this, see the following.

As the first signs of a central nervous system began to appear in the history of the evolution of life on our planet, the model that primitive systems exhibited was:
Passive awareness – reception of a stimulus – responding to that stimulus by successful action using CMA.
(CMA is all conscous thought.)
The stimulus could be pleasure, the demands of appetite, danger or pain. The response to pleasure would be to sustain it; to appetite to satisfy it; to danger and pain, to avoid them.
All responses would engage all the mental skills the creature possessed. Once the stimulus was removed by finding a solution to the problems it presented, the possessor of such a system would return to a mental state of alert but passive awareness. You could say it would be reacquainted with its original mind. Or that it would have peace of mind – conventionally called happiness.
This is model from which our own highly sophisticated central nervous system has evolved. The rules that apply to the original primordial system pertain to ours. However, for us, as life has grown more complex, the stimuli proliferated, and the responses to those stimuli also became innumerable to such an extent that modern men rarely if ever experience the first element of the model from which their central nervous system has evolved – alert, passive awareness – profound peace-of-mind.
Life is now so complex that the problems we are confronted with on a daily basis overwhelm us. Worse than that, a constant stream of random and habitual thoughts parades continuously through our minds. Continuous involvement in often insoluble problems builds a permanent mood of dissatisfaction, frustration and lack of fulfilment – resulting in stress. Until we can confine our mental activity to its proper role – the responses listed in the original model - we will never get our just and proper mental rewards for our successful actions. We will never experience profound peace-of-mind.
Showing no intention or even inclination to change, we voluntarily suffer under the tyranny of obsessive/compulsive thinking (Dukkha).

In order to reacquaint ourselves with the stress-free peace accessible to the original creature, we can practice (zazen) allowing that rampant mental activity to fade away, to burn out of its own accord. Be indifferent to whatever thoughts that arise; be neither for or against them. Make no contribution to the maelstrom churning away in your head. Just patiently observe what is going on in your own mind in as detached a manner as you can muster. At first your practice will fail. Don’t be disheartened. In time you will become familiar with the profound peace of your original mind - and that is life-changing.

Once the inhabitants of this planet accept the fact that wealth, fame and power are false goals and that the only worthwhile goal is peace-of-mind, the world will be a better place to bring up children. ( So long as populations are limited to what resources can support!)
A Greek philosopher (whose name I have forgotten) once said, “It is better never to have been born.”
I tend to agree, unless you are one of the lucky few who have regained access to that peace.
Colin
chankin1937
 

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby desert_woodworker on Tue Oct 27, 2015 2:28 pm

hiya, SS,

Samsaric Spiral wrote:1. From the essay, "Look at the human race as a whole, and of all the horrible things that have happened. Every massacre, every child watching their parents die, every mental illness, every person tortured, etc. Now ask yourself, was the whole thing worth it?"

Considering that all living beings die, yes, of course it is, or was, worth it. And, Yes, "the whole thing". Silly question.

There is climate -- as well as weather -- in any Age of history you care to name. One takes "the rough with the smooth".

But ..."worth it" is an extremely odd concept, and, from some viewpoints, extremely perverse (I don't think that watching 'sports' is "worth it". But some others here DO!).

Have you got any more questions posed by others which you'd care to quote? I stand at the ready... . ;)

--Joe

ps (as an aside, I'll mention that I think it's interesting to contemplate antinomianism, and its history in the West. But that is an entirely different topic, and does not readily relate to Buddhism, except perhaps in some ways to the Pure Land sect, where soteriology, salvation, is based on faith in Amida Buddha, and not on the health and correctness of one's meditation practice, etc.).
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 6384
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby littletsu on Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:13 pm

I thought the idea was that the human (or rather humanoid, let's not shut out other folks) realm is the best to bring up baby Buddhas, and launch them into other realms to save the countless beings.
Why would anybody want to eradicate the oasis in the desert? Is that not too humanishly selfish, just to care about our own human(oid) points of view?
The human experience is karmic, you can not just cancel it out this way. You die, with or without kids, and then find yourself on another planet, therhaving a wife, who wouldve been your kid here.
And make many babies :D
I don't plan to have kids so far, either, but I just don't believe this any kind of answer to the Great Matter!
合うは別れの始めだ。
有燈就有人。
User avatar
littletsu
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:58 pm
Location: Europe

PreviousNext

Return to Current Events & Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

 
RocketTheme Joomla Templates

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 157 on Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:44 am

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests