Anti-natalism and Buddhism

[t-rex]

I suspect many of you in this forum will be sympathetic towards the philosophy of anti-natalism, which is the view that all humans should most definitely cease procreation and thereby snuff our race out of existence. I first heard of this philosophy many years ago on Sam Harris's podcast, and, since this was a time before my depression had gotten really bad, this philosophy intrigued me but ultimately felt too dark and life-denying. I did not feel that life was, on balance, SO bad that, in the words of the title of one anti-natalist book, it is "better never to have been".

Around the same time--or a little before or after--I became very interested in Buddhist philosophy and practice. Now, not all flavors of Buddhism are created equal, but for whatever reason I was drawn to the teachings of Theravada Buddhism. In that school, the ultimate goal is personal enlightenment. Certainly they emphasize compassion and service to others, but the true motivation for reaching enlightenment is to escape the endless cycle of rebirth, since, hey, to exist is to suffer, get sick, age, lose everything that is dear to you, die, and then be reborn and do that all over and over again for eternity. Unless you try super hard and reach enlightenment--then you get to go out like a light! (Or rather, reach nibbana/nirvana, whatever that actually is, but it sure ain't like the Christians' eternal life and bliss in Heaven with all your favorite people.)

I once asked my favorite monk if Theravada Buddhism has anything in common with anti-natalism. I don't think he appreciated the comparison! He was rather dismissive of anti-natalism, saying its "solution"--just don't have kids!--is no solution at all.

Of course, neither philosophy condones suicide. But they both feel pretty life-denying to me. "Better never to have been born." I wonder how much my interest in Buddhism may have fueled my depression, actually, rather than being an antidote to it. I was attracted to it because it seemed to courageously confront the cold hard facts of life rather than denying them or proposing wishful-thinking solutions (heaven) to them: we all get old, get sick, and die, and it really fucking sucks. But ultimately, after spending some time (3-4 months) in several monasteries earlier this year, I find myself no longer inspired by Buddhism.

I'm kind of floundering around and have not settled on a satisfying life philosophy that really works for me. I haven't been suicidally depressed since January when I had ketamine infusions. But the big questions and cold realities of life are coming back to my mind a lot lately, and I'm getting depressed again. Is depression just an over-fixation on the harsh reality of our shared existential situation? I think my family and friends probably think so. I wish I could just hold down work that fulfills me, have some kids or whatever, and do my best to make a good life and be happy with it to the very end, however temporary and fragile it may be. But once you've contemplated the horror of existence enough, it's pretty hard to put that awareness back in Pandora's Box. Ignoring the Big Questions for the rest of my life by staying busy with a lot of pointless activity--what Thoreau called the St. Vitus Dance--doesn't seem to be in the cards for me. I need a life-affirming philosophy I can get behind.

Have any of you found Buddhism or similar philosophies to actually be more life-affirming from your perspective?

 

[Callie Arcale]

I think the writings of Thich Nhat Hahn are quintessentially life-afirming and full of hope. He probably used the word "joy" more than any other word in the English vocabulary :-)

Life is beautiful and worth enjoying, according to him. Although there is suffering, suffering is necessary in order for us to find joy. No mud - no lotus, he says.

Thai was profoundly life-loving and had a positive outlook on existence, which shone through in everything he ever wrote. From the depths of his despair (war, poverty, death) he forged teachings of love, happiness and compassion. There is nothing more life-affirming that his beautiful words that I often meditate you:

Breathing in - I know I am breathing in.
Breathing out - I smile.

 

[t-rex]

Yes, I have read a lot of Thay and found his writings and philosophy beautiful. Maybe I need to just stick with Zen more than the Theravada! The Forest monks I spent time with were just so all about personal enlightenment and escaping samsara. It kinda bummed me out.

Thanks for your reply!

 

[Callie Arcale]

I don't find any school of thought appealing any longer.

I used to revel in existentialism, quite proud of finally having understood what Sartre meant about his fingers touching objects in a weird way in La Nausée.

I then flirted with stoicism - surely Zeno and his famous shipwreck held some deep truths that would cause me to have an Eureka moment.

I then threw myself headlong into feminism. Here, at last, my fragmented, unintelligible self would find some answers, I thought. Alas, it was all very enlightening, but it did not bring me any closer to anything.

Closer to what? What an absurd choice of words. I don't have a precise target, so the comparative "closer to" makes no sense.

 

[jandek]

I've seen this topic come up before in Buddhist forums. Buddhism and antinatalism are based on very different assumptions about the origin and end of suffering. I don't think they don't bear much comparison really.

I can relate to your story. I've been interested in Buddhism for quite a few years now, and was committed to the Theravada tradition for a while. The Pali canon has an appealing "realism" and consistency relative to the Mahayana sutras, and I like its emphasis on moral living over metaphysical speculation. Still, intellectually and emotionally I've gravitated more toward Mahayana schools (like Tiantai, Huayen, Shingon) that emphasize the immanence of wisdom or "Buddha-nature," although these developed a complex dialectic between immanence and transcendence. Unfortunately, it's hard to connect with these traditions outside of Asia. I have a complicated relationship with Buddhism, but it helps me find as much courage and integrity as I can muster in the face of suffering.

 

[Ashu]

Unfortunately, it's hard to connect with these traditions outside of Asia.

And within Asia, Buddhism, being an ancient mainstream institution, is just another birthright of the normtard. That's actually one good thing about western Buddhism for people like us: almost everyone there is more or less mentally ill.

 

[jandek]

And within Asia, Buddhism, being an ancient mainstream institution, is just another birthright of the normtard. That's actually one good thing about western Buddhism for people like us: almost everyone there is more or less mentally ill.

Haha, yeah, that's been my impression too. I'm sure if you quizzed the average Japanese person about Buddhist philosophy you'd get the same baffled expression you'd see from Americans if you asked them what they thought about Thomas Aquinas. I remember reading that Zen teachers in the west were often astonished that Americans actually wanted to meditate.

 

[freedompass]

Ex Western Buddhist here…though we're talking circa 35 years ago. I liked the pragmatism of Buddhism compared to other religions. It didn't give you a preposterous set of beliefs to adhere to while struggling with doubts and cognitive dissonance. Didn't demand a huge 'leap of faith'. Instead it offered a genuine path, the Eightfold Way. A seemingly attainable goal and a map for how to reach it. I liked the acknowledgement that life is suffering, and of course, the atheism. However I became disillusioned by the people I lived and worked alongside in the Buddhist community and dropped out of the lifestyle. It wasn't really their fault…I was struggling with undiagnosed bipolar and BPD.

Antinatalist philosophy also appeals to me. I never heard of it until a few years ago. It gives me hope that many young people are positively choosing not to procreate. I wish it had been a thing 40 years ago when I was 20. Though as far as persuading the masses to stop having kids…good luck with that. These days I'm too jaded and disengaged (not to say cynical) to thoroughly get behind any faith or philosophy. I don't trust in human teachers and man made systems of thought, and experience has turned me off all organised religion.

 

[Pluto]

The Forest monks I spent time with were just so all about personal enlightenment and escaping samsara. It kinda bummed me out.

In the Advaita tradition, the two most reputable teachers of the 20th century (Nisargadatta Maharaj and Ramana Maharshi) both made similar remarks. They instructed followers to take care of their families and responsibilities, but to avoid adding additional complexity. This implies discouraging new procreation, though from the perspective of focusing on enlightenment rather than some antinatalist philosophy.

It would be helpful to understand the nature of enlightenment. It is not a philosophy about evading rebirth, nor is it a lofty perspective on life. In fact, very little can be said about it except to go through the process yourself rather than speculating or philosophising about it. It is guaranteed to be different to what you expect. Proper Zen is a good pathway for achieving this.

 

[Callie Arcale]

I liked the pragmatism of Buddhism compared to other religions

I agree. I don't feel at home in any religion. I most certainly never viewed Buddhism as a religion, but rather a practical set of principles on how to cope with life.

I love the simplicity and straightforwardness of the noble eigthfold path. I believe the path can lead to cessation of suffering if practiced wholeheartedly.

 

[diyCTB]

them: we all get old, get sick, and die, and it really fucking sucks. But ultimately, after spending some time (3-4 months) in several monasteries earlier this year, I find myself no longer inspired by Buddhism.

Why not? Was it hard to asjust to your new environment? New dieting habits? Routine?

Thai was profoundly life-loving and had a positive outlook on existence, which shone through in everything he ever wrote. From the depths of his despair (war, poverty, death) he forged teachings of love, happiness and compassion.

Did he personally suffer while preaching the love of life? Because if he did I can only see masochist writing that.

Did Lao Tzu know how is it like to dwell on the other side of spectrum with his quote? To people suffering it would just sound like another platitude:

"If you are depressed you are living in the past.
If you are anxious you are living in the future.
If you are at peace you are living in the present."

I've seen this topic come up before in Buddhist forums. Buddhism and antinatalism are based on very different assumptions about the origin and end of suffering. I don't think they don't bear much comparison really.

Different assumptions but they cross their paths when it comes to cultivating awareness and selflessness about putting innocent unborn soul before you and saving it from existence when environment does not look promising to plant the seed, knowing you will end up alone without your offspring taking care of you when you get old. It's a step closer to unconditional love.

They instructed followers to take care of their families and responsibilities, but to avoid adding additional complexity. This implies discouraging new procreation, though from the perspective of focusing on enlightenment rather than some antinatalist philosophy.

It would be helpful to understand the nature of enlightenment. It is not a philosophy about evading rebirth, nor is it a lofty perspective on life.

Unless it's Theravada Buddhism that prioritizes personal enlightenment for the sake of liberating soul?

Current times and what is coming are good indicators to start thinking about antinatalism. It will not be pretty and it will be even harder to get through with children.

For me personal enlightenment and antinatalism go well hand in hand although I understand antinatalism per se of preventing existence to avoid any small or big negative issue that are inherent in this life.

The worst are people who are stagnant in their development and lack awareness and empathy for those who suffer and want to escape it, forcing them to stay.

 

[t-rex]

I liked the pragmatism of Buddhism compared to other religions. It didn't give you a preposterous set of beliefs to adhere to while struggling with doubts and cognitive dissonance.

I liked the acknowledgement that life is suffering, and of course, the atheism.

Same here. At least, of course, in more Westernized, secular Buddhism.

However I became disillusioned by the people I lived and worked alongside in the Buddhist community and dropped out of the lifestyle.

Yes, me too. I read the same books and Dhamma talks that the other laypeople in the community would wax on about, and when I read it, it just fell flat. It all seemed too bizarre. Maybe I was just barking up the wrong tradition (Thai Forest Tradition).

I met one gentleman in his 60s who had, in his words, been a Dharma Bum for about 30 years. He had not worked or really been in society for decades. I had a few interesting conversations with him, but he was a pretty odd dude with some odd ideas, and he wasn't totally coherent to me. I thought, "My God. I don't want to turn into this man." Granted that's only one guy, but it made an impression on me.

Another one I met was this really nice 22 year old kid who was about to ordain in the sangha. He recommended me his favorite book, a slim volume about this one revered monk's personal path to enlightenment, i.e. the details of his experience at each step along the way, etc. I read it, and it was so esoteric to me. I thought I would be inspired by this kind of stuff, but I came away from this monastery tour thinking, "I am not like these people".

I was struggling with undiagnosed bipolar and BPD.

How is that going, how are you managing these days? Are you on medications that actually help? Have you ever been hospitalized?

I do not have bipolar or BPD, it's more depression. Depression is a more slippery concept. Although I don't always believe in the objective reality of many mental illness diagnostic categories, and think the DSM is full of a lot of horseshit, I do think bipolar is a pretty distinctive and real diagnosis. Depression, however, is harder to pin down, IMO.

A few years ago I encountered the Theravada concept of 'samvega' in an essay by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. In his words, samvega is:

"at least three clusters of feelings at once: the oppressive sense of shock, dismay, and alienation that come with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of life as it's normally lived; a chastening sense of our own complacency and foolishness in having let ourselves live so blindly; and an anxious sense of urgency in trying to find a way out of the meaningless cycle."

This emotion is reportedly what the Buddha experienced on his three famous trips outside the palace walls at age 29, in which he encountered an old man, a sick man, and a dead man. It's the emotion that drove him to go forth and seek enlightenment.

It also sounds a heck of a lot like clinical depression. But when I first read this essay, I thought, "Aha! I don't have depression, I just have a spiritual sickness. My view of the horror of existence is not some brain chemistry problem. No, I'm *seeing clearly now*." And this led me to explore monastic life. And to @Ashu's point, maybe this is how the mentally ill in the west end up delving deep into Buddhism: it would seem to tell depressed people, "You're seeing the world and our shared existential situation with clear eyes now. And our philosophy and practice is the cure."

You don't feel so broken and full of distorted/disordered thoughts. Rather, you have a fuller picture of reality than the cheery "well" people. I'm sure a lot of folks on this forum feel this way about their dark outlook: "it's truer than that phony, cheerful optimism". Myself, I waffle back and forth. I'm never cheery for long, and when I get to my darkest moments, I come to this forum and have the darkness fueled. But increasingly I'm viewing it as just distortions, even though I'm in a pretty dark pit this week and believing it to some extent.

 

[freedompass]

How is that going, how are you managing these days? Are you on medications that actually help? Have you ever been hospitalized?

I'm a veteran of the psychiatric system. Many hospitalisations, most involuntary. My illnesses have eased off a lot in the last few years…or perhaps I'm just better at managing them. I take only one med now, lamictal a mood stabiliser. I seem very stable on that…touch wood.

 

[JustSwingingTheD]

I suspect many of you in this forum will be sympathetic towards the philosophy of anti-natalism, which is the view that all humans should most definitely cease procreation and thereby snuff our race out of existence. I first heard of this philosophy many years ago on Sam Harris's podcast, and, since this was a time before my depression had gotten really bad, this philosophy intrigued me but ultimately felt too dark and life-denying. I did not feel that life was, on balance, SO bad that, in the words of the title of one anti-natalist book, it is "better never to have been".

Around the same time--or a little before or after--I became very interested in Buddhist philosophy and practice. Now, not all flavors of Buddhism are created equal, but for whatever reason I was drawn to the teachings of Theravada Buddhism. In that school, the ultimate goal is personal enlightenment. Certainly they emphasize compassion and service to others, but the true motivation for reaching enlightenment is to escape the endless cycle of rebirth, since, hey, to exist is to suffer, get sick, age, lose everything that is dear to you, die, and then be reborn and do that all over and over again for eternity. Unless you try super hard and reach enlightenment--then you get to go out like a light! (Or rather, reach nibbana/nirvana, whatever that actually is, but it sure ain't like the Christians' eternal life and bliss in Heaven with all your favorite people.)

I once asked my favorite monk if Theravada Buddhism has anything in common with anti-natalism. I don't think he appreciated the comparison! He was rather dismissive of anti-natalism, saying its "solution"--just don't have kids!--is no solution at all.

Of course, neither philosophy condones suicide. But they both feel pretty life-denying to me. "Better never to have been born." I wonder how much my interest in Buddhism may have fueled my depression, actually, rather than being an antidote to it. I was attracted to it because it seemed to courageously confront the cold hard facts of life rather than denying them or proposing wishful-thinking solutions (heaven) to them: we all get old, get sick, and die, and it really fucking sucks. But ultimately, after spending some time (3-4 months) in several monasteries earlier this year, I find myself no longer inspired by Buddhism.

I'm kind of floundering around and have not settled on a satisfying life philosophy that really works for me. I haven't been suicidally depressed since January when I had ketamine infusions. But the big questions and cold realities of life are coming back to my mind a lot lately, and I'm getting depressed again. Is depression just an over-fixation on the harsh reality of our shared existential situation? I think my family and friends probably think so. I wish I could just hold down work that fulfills me, have some kids or whatever, and do my best to make a good life and be happy with it to the very end, however temporary and fragile it may be. But once you've contemplated the horror of existence enough, it's pretty hard to put that awareness back in Pandora's Box. Ignoring the Big Questions for the rest of my life by staying busy with a lot of pointless activity--what Thoreau called the St. Vitus Dance--doesn't seem to be in the cards for me. I need a life-affirming philosophy I can get behind.

Have any of you found Buddhism or similar philosophies to actually be more life-affirming from your perspective?

Anti-natalism only accounts for human life. All life is the same, futile suffering. If humans went extinct an another species close to our intelligence would eventually evolve.

It's the moral obligation of the human race to destroy all life on earth, in order to end all futile suffering, not just it's own.

 

[diyCTB]

If humans went extinct an another species close to our intelligence would eventually evolve.

Sounds like a vicious cycle until civilization evolves to the point of enlightenment and harmonic coexistence with environment without suffering? If not, what is the point in the grand scale of things?

It's the moral obligation of the human race to destroy all life on earth, in order to end all futile suffering, not just it's own.

More like inherent flaw of human DNA that is carried between generations (maybe civilizations too?) that leads humanity to its demise until they learn to master it?

 

[JustSwingingTheD]

Sounds like a vicious cycle until civilization evolves to the point of enlightenment and harmonic coexistence with environment without suffering?

The "environment" doesn't want harmonic coexistence. The only harmony in the nature is in the balance of terror. That's the only harmony and balance that exists even inside of your own body, bacterias and viruses fighting off each other constantly. If one of them got an advantage over the others, it would destroy them, even if that meant it's own end. That's what the humanity should do too. Let's keep polluting until the greenhouse effect gets out of hand and the seas go dry.

There is no life without suffering. That is a pointless, impossible utopia.

If not, what is the point in the grand scale of things?

The point in the grand scale is that there is no point.

 

[forgiva]

Idk why, but this thread made me feel a bit peaceful. Just wanted to share.

 

[t-rex]

Theravada Buddhism is intense. It asks the practitioners to identify, detach, and absolutely deny for themselves the core elements of the human condition. I respect it. I do think they're tapping out of this theater to tap into what's behind it. Anyone who follows it with vigor is a true spiritual soldier. I have an intimate relationship with Theravada because it's part of the reason my marriage collapsed. It's nothing to mess around with casually in my opinion. All in or all out, if you have a lot of passion inside it can do damage to not go full force on the path of enlightenment. If you don't pursue it fully it'll leave you half in and half out of your individual life. You'll be detached in a lot of ways but still contorted and spun in the human condition and not fully accomplishing anything on either side. It takes commitment.

I personally am not one to shy away from being human and all that comes along with that in this lifetime and next. I find Theravada soul draining. It's really the special ops of spiritual schools if you truly practice it to the word. Buddhism is not about joy and engaging, it is about disolving before death. Buddhist monks write nice, fluffy books for the masses to chill us out in a dutiful manner, but the practice internally between themselves is very tough. That's why I have a high level respect for it but I personally don't want to enlist.

Thank you for your comments. The "special ops" of spiritual schools... well put. The Theravada says, the root of all suffering is craving, so go to the forest, cut yourself off from all worldly pleasures and attachments, and vanquish all craving. Fuck man! Kudos to those who can follow that path to its end. (And knowing you may not reach the goal for thousands of lifetimes, and across those lifetimes you have to re-encounter Buddhism and pick it up all over again... Jesus Christ.)

Maybe reading a bit of those fluffy monks books and continuing to practice and believe in meditation--in the lay/worldly life--as a psychotherapeutic technique is all I need. I should read some of those books on Secular Buddhism (Stephen Batchelor) that I always meant to read but never did. I'm not sure what took me in the direction of the Theravada, and into visiting forest monasteries for four months. Probably the intensity of my depression.

Also my favorite monk I have encountered is a Thai Forest Monk, and he is very eloquent and persuasive. (And critical of those who try to export mindfulness and meditation outside the Noble Eightfold Path into a secular context.) When I visited his monastery and experienced his presence, I felt a strange devotion to him unlike anything I have ever experienced. I felt like I was high on weed. Everything he said was captivating and I was just lapping it all up. The old atheist/anti-religion side of me was kind of freaked out by it. Yet I continued following him for a few years after. I don't really keep up with him, or Buddhism at all, since I left the monasteries. But maybe it's time to dip my toe back into other forms of it. At the very least, I do believe meditation is helpful.

 

[whatevs]

That monk is just a prideful fool and far from enlightement. Buddhism is just a more effective way to be an antinatalist, they're at the core concerned with achieving the exact same thing... EXTINCTION. And it follows: Buddhism is life-negating, not life affirming, obviously.

Theravada Buddhism is intense. It asks the practitioners to identify, detach, and absolutely deny for themselves the core elements of the human condition. I respect it. I do think they're tapping out of this theater to tap into what's behind it. Anyone who follows it with vigor is a true spiritual soldier. I have an intimate relationship with Theravada because it's part of the reason my marriage collapsed. It's nothing to mess around with casually in my opinion. All in or all out, if you have a lot of passion inside it can do damage to not go full force on the path of enlightenment. If you don't pursue it fully it'll leave you half in and half out of your individual life. You'll be detached in a lot of ways but still contorted and spun in the human condition and not fully accomplishing anything on either side. It takes commitment.

I personally am not one to shy away from being human and all that comes along with that in this lifetime and next. I find Theravada soul draining. It's really the special ops of spiritual schools if you truly practice it to the word. Buddhism is not about joy and engaging, it is about disolving before death. Buddhist monks write nice, fluffy books for the masses to chill us out in a dutiful manner, but the practice internally between themselves is very tough. That's why I have a high level respect for it but I personally don't want to enlist.

We have to find what works for us. Personally I can't just stop being a spiritual person (i.e. someone that wonders about/senses a 'beyond'), since it is a perceptual condition that bleeds into the behavioural. But neither I can't give up enjoying food or sexuality for now. Annihilation doesn't work for nearly anyone, but there are middle paths.

Howdie Mickoski said something interesting in the book after all, he like Schopenhauer and old Hindu texts believes that all lesser lifeforms to us are awaiting that we collectively give up life and then they would get liberated too. Just a shot in the dark, but at the very least good for a little story.

 

[jandek]

Thank you for your comments. The "special ops" of spiritual schools... well put. The Theravada says, the root of all suffering is craving, so go to the forest, cut yourself off from all worldly pleasures and attachments, and vanquish all craving. Fuck man! Kudos to those who can follow that path to its end. (And knowing you may not reach the goal for thousands of lifetimes, and across those lifetimes you have to re-encounter Buddhism and pick it up all over again... Jesus Christ.)

Maybe reading a bit of those fluffy monks books and continuing to practice and believe in meditation--in the lay/worldly life--as a psychotherapeutic technique is all I need. I should read some of those books on Secular Buddhism (Stephen Batchelor) that I always meant to read but never did. I'm not sure what took me in the direction of the Theravada, and into visiting forest monasteries for four months. Probably the intensity of my depression.

Also my favorite monk I have encountered is a Thai Forest Monk, and he is very eloquent and persuasive. (And critical of those who try to export mindfulness and meditation outside the Noble Eightfold Path into a secular context.) When I visited his monastery and experienced his presence, I felt a strange devotion to him unlike anything I have ever experienced. I felt like I was high on weed. Everything he said was captivating and I was just lapping it all up. The old atheist/anti-religion side of me was kind of freaked out by it. Yet I continued following him for a few years after. I don't really keep up with him, or Buddhism at all, since I left the monasteries. But maybe it's time to dip my toe back into other forms of it. At the very least, I do believe meditation is helpful.

I think one of the difficulties for lay people (especially westerners who lack a Buddhist lay culture) in Theravada is that typically their only engagement with the tradition is via texts, in which monasticism is clearly privileged over lay life. There's no broader Buddhist lay culture for them to engage in. While a lay person can generate merit and do a lot of good, and the Buddha had quite a bit to say about lay life and morality, the monastic life is considered ideal. And whenever a non-ordained person achieves arhatship (it does occur in the canon), they ordain immediately. It's unfortunate that there's little support or sense of community for lay Buddhists in the west. Most Buddhists in traditional Theravadin countries are content to generate merit as a layperson, although it's surprisingly common for them to ordain for a short period, sometimes a very short period. For whatever reason, most don't feel an intense pressure to become a monk. They may think they lack the karmic context to succeed, "fettered" to the obligations of family or limited by bodily illness, for example. I suspect the intense urgency western Buddhists feel to "become enlightened" now is often due less to samvega than to them not actually believing in rebirth, or that it's a vestige of Christian thinking, i.e. I'm either "saved" or I'm not, with nothing of value in between, while Buddhist teaching presents the path as a process of purification and often a long one. Just my (somewhat rambling) thoughts on this. I'm going to guess that the monk you admired is Ajahn Thanissaro? That sounds like him.

Stephen Batchelor's books are not good interpretations of Buddhism. You might like them and get something out of them, but they're not accurate representations of Buddhist teaching.

 

[t-rex]

I think one of the difficulties for lay people (especially westerners who lack a Buddhist lay culture) in Theravada is that typically their only engagement with the tradition is via texts, in which monasticism is clearly privileged over lay life. There's no broader Buddhist lay culture for them to engage in. While a lay person can generate merit and do a lot of good, and the Buddha had quite a bit to say about lay life and morality, the monastic life is considered ideal. And whenever a non-ordained person achieves arhatship (it does occur in the canon), they ordain immediately. It's unfortunate that there's little support or sense of community for lay Buddhists in the west. Most Buddhists in traditional Theravadin countries are content to generate merit as a layperson, although it's surprisingly common for them to ordain for a short period. For whatever reason, most don't feel an intense pressure to become a monk. They may think they simply lack the karmic context to succeed, "fettered" to the obligations of family or limited by bodily illness for example. I suspect the intense urgency western Buddhists feel to "become enlightened" is often due less to samvega but rather to them not actually believing in rebirth, or that it's a vestige of Christian thinking, i.e. I'm either "saved" or I'm not, with nothing of value in between, while Buddhist teaching presents the path as a process of purification and often a long one. Just my thoughts on this. I'm going to guess that the monk you admired is Ajahn Thanissaro? That sounds like him.

Stephen Batchelor's books are not good interpretations of Buddhism. You might like them and get something out of them, but they're revisionist fantasy.

Thank you for your thoughts. I was referring to Thanissaro with the samvega quote, but the monk I was referring to who has influenced me the most is Ajahn Sona of Birken Forest Monastery in Canada.

I also had felt that way about Stephen Batchelor's books before reading them, which is why I did not read them. Maybe I'm drawn to Theravada because I was born fundamentalist Christian, and I have this vestige of the attitude "The Oldest Most True-To-The-Teachers-Words Way is the Only/Best Way". Even though it's not like fundmentalist Christianity is any more actually true to Jesus's teachings, really, it's more an attitude of "This book is perfect and literally true and none of it can be questioned."

I take it you are a Theravada Buddhist? It does seem hard to be one in the West. Most of the lay followers who brought dana to the monasteries I visited were Thai-Americans. As you said, they are big into the merit thing. But for those who do not come from an Asian culture, there is mostly an emphasis on eradicating mental suffering through intensive meditation, whether in the lay life or monastic life. I have also read that some lay followers in the Buddha's time attained enlightenment, but it seems damn near impossible for a lay westerner in the 21st century.

But do I even want or expect to achieve enlightenment? Eh. A bit less mental suffering through meditation seems achievable.

EDIT: Oh, I see in your earlier post that you are more drawn to the Mahayana schools now. Can you say more about what shifted you towards that?

 

[jandek]

Thank you for your thoughts. I was referring to Thanissaro with the samvega quote, but the monk I was referring to who has influenced me the most is Ajahn Sona of Birken Forest Monastery in Canada.

I also had felt that way about Stephen Batchelor's books before reading them, which is why I did not read them. Maybe I'm drawn to Theravada because I was born fundamentalist Christian, and I have this vestige of the attitude "The Oldest Most True-To-The-Teachers-Words Way is the Only/Best Way".

I take it you are a Theravada Buddhist? It does seem hard to be one in the West. Most of the lay followers who brought dana to the monasteries I visited were Thai-Americans. As you said, they are big into the merit thing. But for those who do not come from an Asian culture, there is mostly an emphasis on eradicating mental suffering through intensive meditation, whether in the lay life or monastic life. I have also read that some lay followers in the Buddha's time attained enlightenment, but it seems damn near impossible for a lay westerner in the 21st century.

But do I even want or expect to achieve enlightenment? Eh. A bit less mental suffering through meditation seems achievable.

Oh yes, Ajahn Sona. I know of him. He's a good teacher. I watch his videos on YT from time to time.

I also have a fundamentalist Christian background (Calvinist). I obviously can't change that background now, but I still am in the process of exposing those assumptions and attitudes. I know they certainly colored my perceptions of Buddhism when I first encountered it and perhaps they still do. I know I wanted Buddhism to be everything Christianity wasn't to me, but that in the end created a very distorted picture that also needed to be taken apart.

I considered myself Theravada Buddhist for some years. I also struggled as a layperson, feeling my life and practice was worthless, and sometimes thought I should ordain. I think in the end I've shifted more to Mahayana teachings because they more effectively counter my tendencies toward nihilism, and I appreciate its deep philosophical and aesthetic contributions. I've also become more comfortable with ideas of "faith" and devotion over the years, after breaking, painfully, with Christianity. That's hardly a rational approach, I know. I can't pretend I'm not coping one way or another. I think it's hard for western lay Buddhists in general. It's hard to navigate between therapeutic "secular Buddhism" tailored for western skepticism and the older traditions and values that are difficult to understand and seem inaccessible. There are several temples where I live, but they are rather ethnic centered. I currently attend a meditation group affiliated with Thich Nhat Hanh's teachings. The people are very nice and I don't feel like a "foreigner" there, but it sometimes feels a bit twee to me.

 

[earshurt]

I felt somewhat attracted towards Buddhism in my teen years, though I never researched it intensely. I agree that from an outsider's perspective, Buddhism feels more willing to reckon with the cold hard facts of life than Christianity, which asks us to have faith in the existence of endless paradise in the afterlife. In contrast, the concept of reincarnation seems to have some basis in observable natural processes, and seems less terrifying than the threat of Hell all around.

As I've gotten older and have had more conversations about religion with people from different backgrounds than myself, I've realized that a religion is something you have to be born and raised into. Every religion is inseparable from the cultural context it evolved in. An extreme example would be Shinto, which is arguably entirely meaningless to anyone with no connection to Japan.

I can try as hard as I like to understand Buddhism, but I'm always going to understand it through the lens of someone from a white Protestant background. I'm never going to have that sense of tradition and connection that people who were raised with Buddhism have. I'm not going to understand the cultural context behind Buddhism intuitively. I may come to conclusions about Buddhism that make no sense to people actually raised with Buddhism.

 

[Rounded Apathy]

Most of my practical experience was with the Thai Forest lineage. What monastery/abbot were you referring to, out of curiosity? I've been to/met a couple, and read from several others.

I got pretty turned off of the whole thing during a stay at Amaravati. Not because of the place or the people, but it was when I just started to see some shit that felt intrinsically wrong to me. Mostly the monastic side. Like the arbitrary definition of the Four Requisites, especially contrasted with the exclusion of physical touch - y'all know we have evolved in such way so that lacking this thing (especially in infancy) literally causes ill effects, right? Then not being able to eat outside certain hours - honestly fine and probably good for most people, but again, what if you're someone who, for a legit medical reason, this doesn't work? Sorry, guess you'll have to wait till the next reincarnation.

One thing I read while there (but from that mountain sangha in California) that stunned me with stupidness was this short transcribed daily talk saying how "we die alone, and are born alone". Are you off your rocker? Humans literally come out of other humans. The fact that someone in a senior position could say something so outlandish and straight up incorrect, have it documented and disseminated was really disturbing. Speaking of which, what a load the karmic system is - took me much longer to catch on that it'is pretty much the Vedic version of original sin. No thank you. It became pretty evident that, as was already pointed out here, it's just another religion, and religions are balls. I concede most have that nice set of shared core fundamentals and were probably fine for the first little while, but everybody fucks things up given enough time. I often say religions are the result of one person who had a pretty decent novel idea, and 99 people who then proceeded to screw shit up in that person's "spirit".

I would also agree that Buddhism is absolutely not life affirming, at least not Thai Forest/OG schools. The literal goal is to escape existence, haha. But then you have those other weird branches like Pure Land that have heaven and other random stuff that Buddhism was supposed to be the antithesis to...whatever!

 

[Pluto]

It sounds to me like a lot of people are conflating religious dogma with enlightenment. The process will be far simpler if you distinguish the two and be clear on which you are actually drawn to.

Jesus was enlightened and much of what he said refers to oneness, which is the same core foundation of Eastern perspectives. If this is understood, all extraneous matter can be discarded and your focus can be narrowed down to what really matters.

As for enlightenment itself, the most common comment from people in that state - including the Buddha himself - is that they recommend you experience it for yourself rather than speculating on what it is or is not like.

 

[jandek]

But then you have those other weird branches like Pure Land that have heaven and other random stuff that Buddhism was supposed to be the antithesis to...whatever!

In sheer number of adherents, Pure Land was (and is) actually one of the most popular and influential traditions of Buddhism, even more than Zen, especially in East Asia. I only began studying it recently, but the philosophy behind it is more interesting and nuanced than I expected.

 

[Rounded Apathy]

In sheer number of adherents, Pure Land was (and is) actually one of the most popular and influential traditions of Buddhism, even more than Zen, especially in East Asia. I only began studying it recently, but the philosophy behind it is more interesting and nuanced than I expected.

Huh, whoda thunk it. Maybe I'll have to give it a looksee one of these days when I've run out of other trivial shit to try and ram into my brain. Any recommended points of entry?

It sounds to me like a lot of people are conflating religious dogma with enlightenment. The process will be far simpler if you distinguish the two and be clear on which you are actually drawn to.

Jesus was enlightened and much of what he said refers to oneness, which is the same core foundation of Eastern perspectives. If this is understood, all extraneous matter can be discarded and your focus can be narrowed down to what really matters.

As for enlightenment itself, the most common comment from people in that state - including the Buddha himself - is that they recommend you experience it for yourself rather than speculating on what it is or is not like.

We are lucky enough to live in an age where many of us can have direct access to at least the theoretical core of so many grand traditions, and don't have to travel the world and immerse ourselves in the dogmatic aspects just to get the main teachings. Who wouldn't want enlightenment, in whatever form? I will say that a lot of these paths/systems/whatever seem to me to have a pretty integral communal aspect, which I like in theory...but this is where the dogma can easily get in the way, in my experience. I at least am someone to whom the solitary path is not suited.

 

[jandek]

Huh, whoda thunk it. Maybe I'll have to give it a looksee one of these days when I've run out of other trivial shit to try and ram into my brain. Any recommended points of entry?

D.T. Suzuki would be good, although the Japanese tradition he focuses on is unique in some ways. Individual books include "Buddha of Infinite Light" and "Shin Buddhism." Vol. 2 of his Selected Works includes Pure Land writings. Thich Naht Hanh has a book on Pure Land that I imagine would be good for someone new to it, but I haven't read it myself.

One book I found very interesting, from the Chinese tradition, is "Pure Land Buddhism: Dialogues with Ancient Masters," although I'm not sure if this would be good for someone new. It shows how two thinkers of different schools (Tiantai and Zen) integrated Pure Land practices into their thought.

 

[Kattt]

I attended classes at the Buddhist vihara back during the 1980s.
The goal of Buddhism is to achieve Nirvana for the self and to create freedom from Samsara (suffering, pain and death) for all sentient beings.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I've always liked the idea of finding something that gave me some kind of understanding of life but I can't say I've made enough effort to acquaint myself with any religion. Looking here, even people who have made the effort seem to be disappointed though!

The comparison of (avoiding) reincarnation and anti-natalism is fascinating though. I guess my query is- if reincarnation is real and if- for whatever reason- widespread anti-natalism/ nuclear apocalypse/ a more lethal covid wipes out the human race- where do all those souls go? Into animals? To another planet/ time inhabited by humans? If there are no longer any bodies available to host these souls- does that mean they are 'stuck' mid development? But stuck where? If they no longer have bodies to inhabit? I'm not really surprised your favourite monk didn't appreciate the suggestion of anti-natalism because I suppose it would actually limit the amount of bodies that our spirits are able to inhabit in order to grow. Somehow, I don't think they would let us out on 'good (but not perfect) behaviour' because there were a lack of 'places' as it were on the life course/ prison.

It's weird- I'm so ignorant. I always thought Buddhism sounded like a 'nice' religion- all that meditation and balance. Still, I've never been at all keen on the idea of reincarnation. I like listening to people who have put in the effort though- so- thanks for posting this.