Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Bringing Children into the World
I've been thinking lately, and the Buddha asked, "Why would someone ever be so cruel as to have a child? They are just going to suffer birth, aging, sickness and death."
Did he find an answer to this question? I don't think he could have said "enlightenment," because the vast majority of people don't become enlightened. And we can come up with reasons that people actually have kids, but when I think about it, I just don't think I could do it. I couldn't bring someone into this life. And I feel simultaneously tremendous love and gratitude for my parents when I realize how much of their lives they've given, just in loving me, and a sense of disgust that they would bring me here! I've always thought of it as kind of a no brainier, having a kid. Kind of like getting a pet, except a way bigger responsibility. Adopting a kid would be like that. But now that I think about it more, to actually produce a child... Is it just that we produce the container for a soul? That the soul already exists--I mean I know that is talked about, like this person you give birth to is not a new person. They have a history of past lives and stuff. And I guess they're going to get born somewhere....
Anyway I just thought this might be cool to talk about! What are your thoughts?
Did he find an answer to this question? I don't think he could have said "enlightenment," because the vast majority of people don't become enlightened. And we can come up with reasons that people actually have kids, but when I think about it, I just don't think I could do it. I couldn't bring someone into this life. And I feel simultaneously tremendous love and gratitude for my parents when I realize how much of their lives they've given, just in loving me, and a sense of disgust that they would bring me here! I've always thought of it as kind of a no brainier, having a kid. Kind of like getting a pet, except a way bigger responsibility. Adopting a kid would be like that. But now that I think about it more, to actually produce a child... Is it just that we produce the container for a soul? That the soul already exists--I mean I know that is talked about, like this person you give birth to is not a new person. They have a history of past lives and stuff. And I guess they're going to get born somewhere....
Anyway I just thought this might be cool to talk about! What are your thoughts?
0
Comments
The Buddha Speaks about the Deep Kindness of Parents and the Difficulty in Repaying it :thumbsup: (As parents, the sutra shouldn't be made to impress on their child :vimp: )
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/filial-sutra.htm
Is cool :cool: and the twelve links of Interdependent Origination accurately provides an extremely satisfying and insightful revelation on birth that basically in the six cycles of realms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratītyasamutpāda
many thanks! Actually, nothing like that.
if you adopt a pet, or a child, you go through all manner of hoops to prove to the relevant authorities and bodies that you are a fit and able person to fulfil the task of caring, nurturing and raising that animal/child. you have to fill out forms, have a home inspection, and, with regards to adopting a child, you have to undergo medical, psychological and other means tests to convince people that you are fit, well and in a good financial position to offer that child the best possible life.
When you decide to conceive a child, no such preliminary tests exist.
Of course although everyone has a right to have children, not everybody can have them... But that's another matter enntirely. No soul exists.
There is no definitive stamp of a person that transmigrates form one existence to the next. You need to study this.... I have had children. I adore them, and indeed, am now a Grandma to the most wonderful, gorgeous delightful little boy.
But, if I had my time again, I would definitely give the factor of having children, a lot more thought now, than I did then....
federica, that's interesting I feel like I've read it somewhere but maybe I haven't. My therapist told me that several times though, and I don't know where he got it from. Anyway I've gotten most of my books from the library so I can't look for a good quote or anything.
I just meant to say that adopting a kid is like choosing to care for some creature that already exists. But that having a kid is another thing entirely, bringing someone into life that didn't exist before, something like that. I realize now, I phrased it poorly.
I'm not sure how you can say no soul exists. Do you not believe in reincarnation? That we take our karma with us throughout many lives? And even if you don't...then maybe you're right, maybe not. Who knows. In any case it sounds like holding tight to a concept.
The closest I can think of to your quote is perhaps the Nandana Sutra, and the full quote is:
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Mara the Evil One went to the Blessed One and recited this verse in his presence:
Those with children delight because of their children.
Those with cattle delight because of their cows.
A person's delight comes from acquisitions,
thus a person with no acquisitions doesn't delight.
The Buddha countered:
Those with children grieve because of their children.
Those with cattle grieve because of their cows.
A person's grief comes from acquisitions,
thus a person with no acquisitions doesn't grieve.
Then Mara the Evil One, sad and dejected at realizing, "The Blessed One knows me!" vanished.
The Buddha was, of course, mocking the Evil One by showing the error in the logical assumption. There are lots of reasons why a particular person or couple should or should not have a baby at a particular time, when they consider their own plans for the future and their own ability to care for a child.
The choice either way is a personal one based on personal issues and desires, and only the ego wants this to become an elevated compassion for a hypothetical suffering person you're creating. You would only be fooling yourself, because by the same logic anyone who creates a baby or doesn't painlessly kill it at birth is being selfish and not sparing the child a life of suffering. See the sutra above for Buddha's answer to that ludicrous logic.
There's nothing wrong with saying, "I just don't want to have or raise a baby right now. Maybe never." without trying to justify it by attaching some moral stand. You can find just as many moral reasons to have children as not, if you're trying to justify an entirely personal decision that doesn't need one.
Anywayyyy it doesn't even much matter. I have that question. Good enough.
Please check your teachings, I assure you, Buddhists do not consider a soul to be relevant to Buddhism. No, I believe in rebirth.
Strictly speaking (although many Buddhists use the term interchangeably) reincarnation is different to re-birth.
Reincarnation is a Tibetan Buddhist concept and is exclusive to elevated Lamas, and Gurus,who, seen as Boddhisattvas, can predict the location of their reincarnation.
The person they reincarnate into, is not a double, carbon-copy of themselves, but has certain definable and identifiable qualities which are characteristically identical to the previous deceased Lama. But they have their own inherent personalities and temperaments, characteristics and qualities.
The Dalai Lama is one such example.
all other, less "advanced" Tibetans are subject to simple re-birth.
Theravada Buddhism does not recognise reincarnation as a relevant occurrence.
But I think you have a misconception about re-birth
/reincarnation. No. Granted, our kamma dictates the status of our rebirth and the 'realm' into which we will be reborn, but this has nothing to do with, and does not indicate the existence of a Soul. I think perhaps you may be mistaken about the concept you hold.
I do not deny your right to hold such opinion, but it's not a Buddhist one.
The idea of a soul — that part of us which is thought to be permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, etc. — is an idea that finds little support in the suttas, and the concepts of kamma and rebirth don't necessarily need such an agent to function. This is only a problem if one assumes that anatta = the non-existence of the conventional person.
From the Buddhist point of view, one moment of consciousness conditions the arising of next, just as one action conditions the quality of feeling a moment of consciousness cognizes; it's simply a continuation of a process — nothing 'remains,' nothing 'transmigrates,' etc. — there are merely phenomena that condition other phenomena in the interdependent process we call life. No one sutta deals with this question, but this idea is found throughout the canon.
This, of courses, raises the question of how kamma is able to be stored and passed on from life to life, as well as memories from those lives if one accepts the literal interpretation of rebirth, but I don't really have any concrete answers to that.
It could be that memories are stored in the brain; and when the body dies, all memories are lost. Or, perhaps our memories are stored/carried on via some difficult to access medium, e.g., genetics, storehouse consciousness a la Yogacara, morphogeneic field, etc.
As for how such a transference of memory is possible (if indeed such a thing even exists), it may take place on the quantum level, kind of like 'spooky action at a distance' where two entangled particles communicate with each other instantaneously, even over great distances. This could also go to explain rebirth — which is viewed as an instantaneous process whereby the last consciousness of a being at the time of death immediately conditions the arising of a new consciousness — occurs.
This is all just speculation on my part, however, so take whatever I say with a grain of salt. Just wanted to give you something to think about.
* and by "crowd" I mean one person apparently using many different accounts.
@Jason are you familiar with this brand of criticism? I mean they are particularly critical of the Theravadins. See, Grimms' _The Doctrine of the Buddha_ or Perez-Ramon's _Self and non-self in early Buddhism_
I think that the commentarial tradition of Theravada goes too far in their rejection of self, making a categorical ontological statement about something the Buddha himself remained silent on. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu rightly points out, the only place in the Pali Canon where the Buddha is asked point blank whether or not there's a self (SN 44.10), he refused to answer on the ground that "to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible" (No-self or Not-self?).
Nevertheless, I think the proponents of self such as Perez-Ramon go too far in the opposite direction by proposing a doctrine of self despite the fact that the Buddha himself said that he didn't "envision a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair" (MN 22).
In the Buddha's teachings, everything is a question of skill; and the question "Who suffers?" isn't a question worth asking (SN 12.35). Soteriologically speaking, it's a distraction that isn't conducive to liberation. In trying to answer this question, our focus is taken off of the immediate practice, and instead becomes lost within a 'thicket of views' of self. It's a speculative trap that we're encouraged to avoid, for it only leads to more suffering, more becoming, more craving, and not the arising of knowledge, the abandoning of craving, nibbana.
In MN 2, the Buddha makes the danger inherent in this kind of inappropriate attention abundantly clear:
Be it Buddhism, Christianity, Nihilism, or any philosophy or religion combined is like piling pillows in front of a freight train.
The most easily understood criticism of the work of Perez-Ramon concerns his translation of certain passages from the Pali. I have seen these passages bandied about (well, by one person) on this forum. These are the handful or so translations that are positive affirmations of a Soul or Self. Such as, "There within, Ananda, dwell with the Soul as your Light, with the Soul as your refuge, with none other as refuge."
Critics point out, and it seems so obvious that I'd love to hear Perez-Ramon's (or any proponent of a Buddhist self's) response, that the translators have merely perverted reflexive pronouns (like 'myself' or 'yourself') into a proper noun (Self).
Seems like such an easy argument to settle, but I don't know Pali, so...
I actually asked this same question not too long ago: Here is the thread -- There are a ton of answers.
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/5014/why-do-people-have-children
In my humble opinion, coming from my experience I have drawn these seemingly logical conclusions.
1. There are way too many children in the world, 18,000 children a day die from starvation. If someone wishes to not have children and instead use their resources to help the children already here who need it, that would probably be something along the lines of compassion.
2. On average, to raise a child in the west it's going to cost you about $200,000 from age 0-22. With that money saved, one could ease the suffering once again across the world and even in your hometown. Perhaps donate to the local monastery. Kiva.org is pretty cool -- One could donate that amount in loans, perpetually. Easing the suffering of lots of folks.
3. Indians are reproducing at 25.6 million people a year.
-- According to the New York Times, is estimated that about 42.5% of the children in India suffer from malnutrition.[55] The World Bank, citing estimates made by the World Health Organization, states "that about 49 per cent of the world's underweight children, 34 per cent of the world's stunted children and 46 per cent of the world's wasted children, live in India." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India
Stats like these just make me cringe. The poor are not educated. Those children are definitely being born into suffering. Something there needs to be changed. In the impoverished countries I believe there should be more of an emphasis on contraceptives and general logical applicability combined with meditation practice. Sadly though, our educational system is trash here too. From the age of 3-4 children are already garnering a sense of self which is perpetuated by the society that we live in and the schools. Fundamentally, things are just as they are. Simple logic like this isn't taught in schools. It's more along the lines of indoctrination and mind control.
4. On top of all this if we're honest with ourselves -- we have no idea what life is, where we came from, what we're doing or who we are. From this perspective, is it really wise to bring more sentient beings into this situation? Probably not.
In conclusion, there are too many people, there are too many people suffering and there are too many already here that need our help to even consider having children.
How people actually know how to bring up their child right let along attempt to help orphans etc?
Why denounce people who raise loving stable families? This is discriminating against people who have the chance to be born and grow up in a stable environment. All this talk about whats wrong with other people or population.
Sakyamuni has queries on the real purpose of life on the basis of birth, aging, sickness and death that all have to go through regardless of background, from his inquisitive of worldly mind, and then sought a wholesome answer and solution on a blissful permanent intrinsic nature that all rightfully ought to delight in.
The important is one's preparedness and enlightenment on themselves and its surrounding. That's mean, if you are a married couples, you could learn the realization and bliss upon instead of contributing to undesirable outcome. On the other hand, if you are not married, you may wish to discover and bring your potential child to become Buddha on earth or in another realm once you attain enlightenment. :cool: