The Dalai Lama's Solution to Overpopulation

[contemplans]

If overpopulation is such a terrible thing, then we have to have a good solution to solve it. Never do evil that good may come of it. The Dalai Lama presented something that would be very good if it organically grew in society, i.e., people voluntarily taking up the celibate life. The Dalai lama snickered, but I bet you dollars to donuts that if you researched it, that is his view. This has always been my solution to maintaining stability in population growth. It makes sense, and it is beneficial to society. Tibet at one time, I think, had 25% of its mature population in vowed celibate life. I think that was the figure. Either way, it was a very large number. Obviously this would allow people who want to be married and have children to have as many as they like, so the question of birth control becomes a non-issue. This is if overpopulation was even a problem. Social security isn't funded because millions of future workers were aborted and contracepted out of existence. Those are signs of dying civilizations. The birth pangs we fill now in the world are the scrambles for the resources that we can import into our atrophying societies.

As for the question of birth control in itself, I think most of these people are not concerned about the plight on the world, but their own selfish wants. How many people practice contraception for any other reason than avoiding pregnancy? It is a behavior that doesn't want to deal with the full consequences of an act, which in my mind is highly unskillful. I think this denial of the reality of sex, and its primary purpose which is reproduction of ourselves, is part and parcel also of a hedonistic society. A race to the bottom.

[tiltbillings]

. . . atrophying societies. . .

Only to be out done by the dessicated Church.

[Prasadachitta]

As for the question of birth control in itself, I think most of these people are not concerned about the plight on the world, but their own selfish wants. How many people practice contraception for any other reason than avoiding pregnancy? It is a behavior that doesn't want to deal with the full consequences of an act, which in my mind is highly unskillful. I think this denial of the reality of sex, and its primary purpose which is reproduction of ourselves, is part and parcel also of a hedonistic society. A race to the bottom.

Hello contemplans,

I think the statement above is indicative of the mental state that produced it and does nothing to consider the actual selfishness of any actual people. I expect people can have many reasons for avoiding pregnancy. The full consequences of the act of sex need not be pregnancy and therefore the people who engage in it may or may not be want to deal with the other consequences. I dont understand what "reality" you think is being denied. "its primary primary purpose which is to reproduce ourselves" Whose purpose are we talking about? Not mine. Is it your primary purpose? To me purpose is defined by the intention of those who act and yes that may mean for the purpose of pleasure. Hedonism may not be the best way to approach life but you have not made that case. To emphasize reproduction over enjoyment and affection is truly a race to the bottom in my view.

Kindly

Prasadachitta

[contemplans]

I think the statement above is indicative of the mental state that produced it and does nothing to consider the actual selfishness of any actual people. I expect people can have many reasons for avoiding pregnancy. The full consequences of the act of sex need not be pregnancy and therefore the people who engage in it may or may not be want to deal with the other consequences. I dont understand what "reality" you think is being denied. "its primary primary purpose which is to reproduce ourselves" Whose purpose are we talking about? Not mine. Is it your primary purpose? To me purpose is defined by the intention of those who act and yes that may mean for the purpose of pleasure. Hedonism may not be the best way to approach life but you have not made that case. To emphasize reproduction over enjoyment and affection is truly a race to the bottom in my view.

I am talking about the nature of the act. Purpose is in the nature of it. Just as I eat to stay alive, but could also take pleasure in it, one also has sexual conduct to procreate, but also can take pleasure in it. If one was to subvert eating, and make it all about pleasure, that is called gluttony, and is unskillful. If someone changes the act in some way, that places their act out of line with the ultimate purpose of the act. They want the pleasure without the baby. That is analogously unskillful as is taking food for pleasure devoid of any reference to sustaining life. Do you need a bio 101 instruction to know what happens there? And contraception is not for anything, but against conception of a baby. It is not a positive act, but a negative act. It excludes. The full consequences of the sexual act are all aimed at procreation. People want their cake and want to eat it too, and our culture is choking on how much cake their taking in. Overpopulation is the least of our worries. Everyone is already on board the anti-life campaign.

Also note that things like the pill actually kill a living being. Their called abortifacients.

[vidar]

The fact is that modern contraceptive methods are a very effective solution to overpopulation and many other problems, contrary to the idea that the majority of the population become monks or nuns which is an unrealistic idea.

How many people practice contraception for any other reason than avoiding pregnancy? It is a behavior that doesn't want to deal with the full consequences of an act, which in my mind is highly unskillful. I think this denial of the reality of sex, and its primary purpose which is reproduction of ourselves, is part and parcel also of a hedonistic society. A race to the bottom.

Even from a conservative theravadin point of view there is nothing wrong in modern contraception within marriage :

The article of M. O'C. Walshe:

"In Buddhism, marriage is not a "sacrament," as such a concept does not exist. And it is not any part of the functions of Buddhist monks to join lay people together in holy wedlock (or deadlock). If it is occasionally done today in Japan, this is just a modern idea in conformity with a general tendency among Japanese Buddhists to imitate (often perhaps unwisely) Christian institutions. In the Buddhist tradition it is often the custom for bhikkhus to give their "blessing" after the civil wedding-ceremony has been performed. But even this is really more of a concession to the laity than anything else. And if the marriage does not turn out a success, no bhikkhu has any authority to say that that marriage shall not be dissolved. Divorce, like marriage, is a civil affair. Likewise, if a married couple decide to practice contraception, that is entirely their business. The Sangha will not feel called upon to interfere or object.It must be admitted that certain bhikkhus have been heard to declare that contraception is wrong and should be banned — but that is their private opinion. It is no part of the Buddhist teaching."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el225.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The article of Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda:

"Family Planning

Some religions are not in favor of family planning. They say it is against the will of God. Buddhism does not interfere in this personal choice. Man is at liberty to follow any method in order to prevent conception. According to Buddhism, certain physical and mental conditions must be present for conception to take place. When any one of these conditions is absent (as when family planning is being practiced), no conception takes place, therefore a life does not come into being. But after conception, abortion is NOT acceptable in Buddhism because it means taking away a life that is already present in the form of fetus.

Test-tube Babies

Some people are interested in the moral implication or religious attitude with regard to test-tube babies. If a woman is unable to conceive a baby in the normal way, and if she is anxious to have a baby by adopting modern medical methods, there is no ground in Buddhism to say that it is either immoral or irreligious. Religions must give due credit to man's intelligence and to accommodate new medical discoveries if they are harmless and beneficial to mankind. As was mentioned earlier, so long as the conditions are right, conception can be allowed to take place, naturally or artificially."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... e.html#ch8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The idea that sex is only for reproduction and that contraception is an evil act is a roman catholic idea and has nothing to do with the buddhist views.

Also note that things like the pill actually kill a living being. Their called abortifacients.

A living being is not the same that a sentient being.

[Prasadachitta]

I am talking about the nature of the act. Purpose is in the nature of it. Just as I eat to stay alive, but could also take pleasure in it, one also has sexual conduct to procreate, but also can take pleasure in it. If one was to subvert eating, and make it all about pleasure, that is called gluttony, and is unskillful. If someone changes the act in some way, that places their act out of line with the ultimate purpose of the act. They want the pleasure without the baby. That is analogously unskillful as is taking food for pleasure devoid of any reference to sustaining life. Do you need a bio 101 instruction to know what happens there? And contraception is not for anything, but against conception of a baby. It is not a positive act, but a negative act. It excludes. The full consequences of the sexual act are all aimed at procreation. People want their cake and want to eat it too, and our culture is choking on how much cake their taking in. Overpopulation is the least of our worries. Everyone is already on board the anti-life campaign.

Also note that things like the pill actually kill a living being. Their called abortifacients.

You have not made yourself more clear to me by saying "Purpose is in the nature of it.". It seems to me you are saying the same thing in in a more confusing manner. You prioritized conception as the primary goal of sex and that is not, in my view, a necessity. With regard to what makes a thing more or less skillful Im not sure we can agree. To me there is a spectrum of more or less skillful and it is not a matter of either or. I think skillfulness is best assessed with regard to actual people in actual situations and preferably by those involved.

Kindly

Prasadachitta

[Buckwheat]

Yes, change happens. Slaves are freed, women get to vote, democracy triumphs over dictators (at least in the west)... society is really in a downhill slide. And also, crime rates peaked in the early 90's and have been generally falling in the US. I believe New York is in a similar trend, but don't have evidence for that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hello Buckwheat.

I don't believe any man should be a slave. I don't think religious people could honestly feel any other way and I think it was non religious types that promoted it. I also believe that women should be allowed to vote. These changes are very good. By the way, when talking about a decline in morals, I wasn't referring simply to the crime rate. I was talking about how people treat each other and relate to each other, how much people value relationships that stay together to raise children, how people live the good life with VALUES and so on. These days all the good stuff is getting drowned out with the pursuit of pleasure. It's ME, ME, ME.


Kevin

Kevin,
I apologize for my confusing use of sarcasm. I was citing slavery and civil rights as examples of progress to counter your notion that society is in decline. I agree that society as a whole would benefit from a higher moral standard, but I was criticizing the assumption of the good ol days. My grandma was raised in a family of divorce in the 20s and prostitution is often considered the "oldest profession". I do not honestly know a good way to compare morality between now and the past, so any assumption of decline or improvement seems based on hopeful or fearful assumptions.

I agree that current attitudes on sex and marriage often lack reverence and respect, but I also see that largely as a counter reaction to catholic history. I don't claim to have any special insight on these matters. I am only pointing out that our respective views on this matter are based more on opinion than fact. My view is that of change, neither for the better or worse. The upside is more and more subdivisions of society are treated like humans and the downside is some things that used to be sacred lose their value. Some people will celebrate, others complain. This is life.

Hats off to your apparent high ethical standards. I wish you enlightenment in this lifetime.

[Virgo]

Kevin,
I apologize for my confusing use of sarcasm. I was citing slavery and civil rights as examples of progress to counter your notion that society is in decline. I agree that society as a whole would benefit from a higher moral standard, but I was criticizing the assumption of the good ol days. My grandma was raised in a family of divorce in the 20s and prostitution is often considered the "oldest profession". I do not honestly know a good way to compare morality between now and the past, so any assumption of decline or improvement seems based on hopeful or fearful assumptions.

Hi Buckwheat, no problem. Slavery is always an atrocity. Thankfully the Founding Fathers of the United States (the majority of them were anti-slavery) were influenced by Locke and so forth and although they simply couldn't outlaw slavery when they drafted the constitution because certain slave states would not ratify it, they did write in "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence, which was their real philosophy, that is to say all men have natural rights which are birthrights and which are not given or taken by and government, organisation, religious group, etc. and which cannot be taken away by them, unlike legal rights which are granted by governments. In the speech Lincoln gave on the Emancipation Proclamation, he directly quoted this philosophy and that line from the Declaration of Independence as the justification for freeing the slaves, and so forth. Slavery is an immoral deed that should never have been started in the country that I live in. Slavery in other countries I do not know too much about, but of course it is still immoral.

I agree that current attitudes on sex and marriage often lack reverence and respect, but I also see that largely as a counter reaction to catholic history. I don't claim to have any special insight on these matters. I am only pointing out that our respective views on this matter are based more on opinion than fact. My view is that of change, neither for the better or worse. The upside is more and more subdivisions of society are treated like humans and the downside is some things that used to be sacred lose their value. Some people will celebrate, others complain. This is life.

It is estimated that approximately one percent of Catholic priests molested people. That is 5,000 out of the almost half million living Catholic priests. A tragedy absolutely, but I bet similar numbers could be found in any organisation of it's size, sadly.

Kevin

[Virgo]

Some religions are not in favor of family planning.

He uses the term as a synonym for contraception. You plan a family by not making babies? If you want to practice contraception with your loved one, you pull your penis out before you ejaculate.

The idea that sex is only for reproduction and that contraception is an evil act is a roman catholic idea and has nothing to do with the buddhist views.

Sex, even for making babies is unwholesome in Buddhism, whilst when done properly it is part of a sacrement in the Catholic church. Therefore, we can see that Buddhism's view of love making is more negative than the Catholic view.

And the idea that sex is only for reproduction is not just a Roman Catholic idea. It is much older than that and shared by many religions. Even new groups such as the Church of England and even the Puritans that split from them, and even newer sects believe it.

A living being is not the same that a sentient being.

Once a being is conceived, it is sentient. Killing it is murder of a human, leading to hell or other lower states, and when one finally comes back to the human realm, ones life will be short. It's not compassionate. It is a ticket to hell.

Kevin

[vidar]

You plan a family by not making babies? If you want to practice contraception with your loved one, you pull your penis out before you ejaculate

The coitus interruptus method is is highly fallible and certainly does not protect against STIs.

Sex, even for making babies is unwholesome in Buddhism, whilst when done properly it is part of a sacrement in the Catholic church. Therefore, we can see that Buddhism's view of love making is more negative than the Catholic view.

Can you give a reference of this from the suttas? however, is clear that the Buddha said that a lay householder can have sex within the scope of the third precept and he/she can continuing advancing in the Path even to the reach of Stream Entry.

And the idea that sex is only for reproduction is not just a Roman Catholic idea. It is much older than that and shared by many religions

If is only a roman catholic idea or is shared by many religions is irrelevant, the point is that is not a theravadin idea in particular and certainly not a buddhist idea in general.

Even new groups such as the Church of England and even the Puritans that split from them, and even newer sects believe it.

This is wrong, the Church of England and the churches of the Anglican Communion and also the historical protestant denominations (lutherans, presbyterians, methodists) accept the use of modern contraceptives methods.

Once a being is conceived, it is sentient. Killing it is murder of a human, leading to hell or other lower states, and when one finally comes back to the human realm, ones life will be short. It's not compassionate. It is a ticket to hell.

This is a non sequitur because when I said that a living being is not the same that a sentient being I was not referring the embryo.

[mikenz66]

It is estimated that approximately one percent of Catholic priests molested people. That is 5,000 out of the almost half million living Catholic priests. A tragedy absolutely, but I bet similar numbers could be found in any organisation of it's size, sadly.

Yes, one has to be careful with numbers. A local radio program here that examines the media had a piece last weekend on reports that some quite large numbers of teachers in New Zealand were the subject of complaints. The numbers initially sounded bad, but there are a lot of teachers and it was pointed out that on a population basis complaints against several other professions (including journalists) were higher.


Mike

[Prasadachitta]

I know this is off topic....

Priests molesting children is not as much of a problem as the institution knowingly transferring and protecting those priests so that they end up doing it again and again.


Prasadachitta

[Virgo]

You plan a family by not making babies? If you want to practice contraception with your loved one, you pull your penis out before you ejaculate

The coitus interruptus method is is highly fallible and certainly does not protect against STIs.

Well then so be it. The function of sex is to make babies. It is constant craving and indulgence in it that makes us think we have a "right" to have sex as we please, without creating babies from it. Condoms can guard against many sexually transmitted infections, but abstienance guards against all of them. And genital herpes, for example, is transmitted via skin to skin contact, like some other STI's. Condoms don't do anything to stop their spread.

Sex, even for making babies is unwholesome in Buddhism, whilst when done properly it is part of a sacrement in the Catholic church. Therefore, we can see that Buddhism's view of love making is more negative than the Catholic view.

Can you give a reference of this from the suttas? however, is clear that the Buddha said that a lay householder can have sex within the scope of the third precept and he/she can continuing advancing in the Path even to the reach of Stream Entry.

According to the Abhidhamma, lobha is always unwholesome. The sex act is based on lobha, making it an unwholesome endeavor. Certain suttas such as the Dhammika Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html) state that lay people should be celibate, and if they cannot be celibate then they should not visit anothers wife. As long as a lay Buddhist follows the precept about sexual misconduct, he/she cannot be faulted. Sex outside of marriage that does not breach the precepts is fine, of course. Marriage is just a guideline. And even Sakadagami's can have sexual intercourse, as long as it doesn't break the precepts. Marriage is definitely a good thing to aim for though.

And the idea that sex is only for reproduction is not just a Roman Catholic idea. It is much older than that and shared by many religions

If is only a roman catholic idea or is shared by many religions is irrelevant, the point is that is not a theravadin idea in particular and certainly not a buddhist idea in general.

Sex is unwholesome.

Even new groups such as the Church of England and even the Puritans that split from them, and even newer sects believe it.

This is wrong, the Church of England and the churches of the Anglican Communion and also the historical protestant denominations (lutherans, presbyterians, methodists) accept the use of modern contraceptives methods.

Are they for or against fornication?

Once a being is conceived, it is sentient. Killing it is murder of a human, leading to hell or other lower states, and when one finally comes back to the human realm, ones life will be short. It's not compassionate. It is a ticket to hell.

This is a non sequitur because when I said that a living being is not the same that a sentient being I was not referring the embryo.

Ok. I gotchya.

Kevin

[tiltbillings]

Well then so be it. The function of sex is to make babies.

That is not, in human beings, the only function of sex.

[Ben]

Well then so be it. The function of sex is to make babies.

That is not, in human beings, the only function of sex.

Quite apart from pleasure and the cultivation of intimacy between two adults in a loving relationship, there is homosexual sex and masturbation (self-sex) which cannot produce a baby.
kind regards,

Ben