Is Buddhism an anti-natalist religion?

[Anonymous No.15738164]

I've been reading the Pali Canon lately and I keep coming across Suttas where the Buddha and his followers seem to stress the cessation of birth because it leads to the cessation of future suffering. Isn't this just anti-natalism? For example:

>Then Mara the Evil One approached the bhikkhuni Cala and said to her: "What don't you approve of, bhikkhuni?"
>"I don't approve of birth, friend."
>Mara: Why don't you approve of birth?
>For one who is born there is death; Once born, one encounters sufferings — Bondage, murder, affliction — Hence one shouldn't approve of birth.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.006.bodh.html

[Anonymous No.15738358]

>>15738164
yes

[Anonymous No.15738364]

>>15738164
No.

[Anonymous No.15738445]

>>15738164
Buddha said multiple times that house-holders, husbands and wives with normal lives can attain enlightenment and that the ascetic path with its vows are not necessary.

Also there is a dependence between monks and people, monks not only beg for food but also depend on the skills of the lay folk.

Buddha also said a human birth is supremely precious, if mankind were to die off enlightenment would be basically impossible, since beings would be rebirthing as animals and bugs and ghosts in sub-realms.

[Anonymous No.15738472]

>>15738358
>>15738364
Maybe

[Anonymous No.15738527]

>>15738164
I think that is more safe to say that it is indifferent rather then "anti". Laymen buddhists can have a family with children, and if that's the role that you choose/feel to embrace you should do it in the most "enlightened" and mindful way possible, being a loving and caring father/mother. Still, the whole point about Buddhism (as far as I have understood) is about realizing the inherent impermanence and relativism of reality and consequently not to cling to "things" like objects, people, mental states, physical states, ideas etc. and (the more you realize this) to let go of the things that you actually cling to, because you eventually understand that nothing is worth clinging to, just like you couldn't hold tight to a slipping rope without hurting yourself. Reproducing is an animal instinct, it is natural, but that doesn't mean that it is inherently right (nor wrong). You could create a beatiful life, a compassionate individual, a genius, a spiritual leader; or you could have children and then become poor before they can go to school, dooming them and your family to a life of stress and misery (from which he could still recover, just saying the possibilities), or they could be born with some orrible disease, or turn out to be the next dictator, who knows. The point is that life in general is unpredictable and the more you try to define it/create it, the more is likely that it will crumple, leaving you sad... Or not, if you look at it as a mandala, as something that you feel like building but without attachment, without identifying with it, always knowing that you and your loved ones could and certainly will die (although this "enlightened attachment" is more proper of the Mahayana school, with the figure of the bodhisattva and all). Rather than saying "yes or no" to something, I think that a buddhist monk would ask "why"? Why having children? Are they "things" that you want to have? Things that are going to define you and your life, giving you a sense of accomplishment? Things that are going to love and are going to make you feel loved? I think that Buddha, Jesus or any other enlightened being would answer that one can (ideally) love and feel loved unconditionally everyone without having "to have" a source (person) of love that you call "mine" (universal love). Again, still, there's nothing wrong about having children, they are just something that you will almost inevitably develope attachment for, or that at least will attach to you (they are going to depend from you for everything, litterally, so I think it's quite hard to have children without worrying about them), so I guess in the end having a family or children can be considered (neutrally) as something that will require a lot (if not the most) of your energy and your dedication, something that you will have to sacrifice yourself to and that could end up being the opposite of what you expected or wanted it to be (again, divorce, disabilities, becoming poor...)

[Anonymous No.15738530]

>>15738164
It's explicitly anti-suicide.

[Anonymous No.15738558]

>>15738527
From a more "metaphysic" point of view, if you put the concept of reincarnation in the picture, I guess that the inherent neutrality (or better, over-duality) of Buddhism stil applies: yes, you could bring another life in a world of suffering and doom it to misery and pain (just look at all the children dying of famine an disease in the poorest parts of the world), or you could be the best family/environment for that child, gifting him with a life with the suitable conditions to reach enlightenment. So yeah, I think in the end it really comes down to
1) The school of Buddhism you look at (principally Mahayana and Theravada)
2) If you personally feel more enclined ti be a "monk" (more strict and determined to reach enlightenment/detachment from this world) or a layman, a "normal" guy
3) In the latter case, be the best "normal guy" (here, parent) that you can be. For this particular subject, I suggest you the Bhagavad-Gita if you don't know it already, it basically talks about this "detached attachment", this being enlightenly involved with things and to follow one's "duty".
Hope I helped (and didn't say anything heterodox or wrong, some buddhanon will correct me), sorry for eventual mistakes (english is not my first language), have a nice day

[jesus No.15738560]

>>15738164
in true religions children are not "yours".

[Anonymous No.15738568]

>>15738560
Based

[Anonymous No.15738600]

>>15738164
the non-arising of birth is the condition for non-arising dukkha, so you have to stop birth from arising.

There are 2 views from the buddhist philosophers
-the birth is really the physical birth
-the birth is an allegory, like a ''mental state'' especially from the philosophers who like the momentariness interpretation.

[Anonymous No.15738610]

>refutes anatta

nothing personal hylic

[Anonymous No.15738625]

>>15738610

[Anonymous No.15738636]

>>15738530
>It's explicitly anti-suicide.
there are arahants who have committed suicide though

[Anonymous No.15738687]

>>15738530
there are suttas in pc in which people become arahants in the process of cuting their throats.

[Anonymous No.15738756]

>>15738530
Wrong

[Anonymous No.15738805]

>>15738164
the idea of freeing oneself from reincarnation is pretty anti-natal. whole goal of the religion is to achieve true death

[Anonymous No.15738807]

>>15738164
Buddha didnt teach any isms you faggot, Buddhism came much later.
The pali canon comes much later after you have established your life in Sila (Morality), Samadhi (Meditation) and Panna (Experiential wisdom)

If you want to understand the Buddha, go to a cave and focus on your breath till your mind calms down for days on end and then read the canon.

[Anonymous No.15738819]

>>15738527
This Basically. More nuanced..

[Anonymous No.15740159]

>>15738756
WRONG