It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Another point that I suspect many are missing.
For many people - by no means all - having children is just instinctive. Not surprising because it originally started out as a biological imperative. Survive and reproduce, that was all the species ever did. So despite progress in arts, culture, and science later on, this primary instinct will still be there. A few centuries of civilization cannot remove millions of years of instinct.
IMHO when it comes to Buddhism & Christianity ....Never the twain shall meet They are worlds apart.....
That tells me that you have insufficient knowledge of either.
If HHDL, Thomas Merton, Jim Pym and TNH can find things to reconcile one with the other, what makes you so expert...?!
What's the proof that they are right? Maybe they are all wrong. Is that possible? Or because they are famous people, they ought to be right no matter what?
To me it is not just about overpopulation. Even if the population is low, I would still wonder why people want to bring children into his sad, violent world. As buddhists, we accept dukkha. And yet we want children to go through this dukkha?
Just a short question. It's said that if someone teaches wrong view to other people that person will be reborn in avici hell. The question is, what does "teaches wrong view" mean?
What this REALLY means is:
My religion/school of thought alone is true. If you deviate from this even a little bit, you will go to hell.
That's good advice. But I do think we should be clear about what form of Buddhism we stand for. Everyone here brings a unique view to the table, but we should talk about what we support and why, so that it's clear what way the community is looking.
I don't dispute that. What is unacceptable - and unskilful, in Buddhist terms - is to try to decide what 'you' think others should adhere to, discard, adopt or support.
By all means be 'clear' about what form of Buddhism you stand for.
But do not mistake that clarity of your own perception, to be a presumed yardstick for others.
I'd like to awesome that remark a few more times. Claims of exclusivity of truth are annoying.
That may be, but the scientific method is preferred because it's based on empirical evidence, logic, and objectivity. It also has a self-correcting mechanism, which is why outdated theories are replaced by newer ones. Contrast this with religion where there are usually two extreme positions:
1) My interpretation alone is correct
2) Any interpretation is correct.
So the scientific method may not be perfect, but it's the best that we've got at the moment.