If life is suffering, then wouldn't it be unethical to have children?

[DooDoot]

Wouldn't that be bringing a child into an existence which is suffering?

In my opinion, this does not fall under the category of ethics (sila) in Buddhism because having children can give unenlightened people the opportunity to do good & live unselfishly. However, enlightened people who actually realise in their heart that conditioned life is unsatisfactory I imagine are generally repulsed at the idea of having children. This probably includes the personal knowledge that the struggle to reach enlightenment was so difficult thus they would not endure another through such uncertainty & difficultly given the Pali suttas teach enlightenment is rare.

[ieee23]

If life is suffering,

The Buddha never taught "Life Is Suffering"

7 Things The Buddha Never Said

[dharmacorps]

I look at it this way. Having kids is essentially in and of itself a neutral action. You don't need any special qualities to do it. Your intentions could be good, bad, or neutral. You could have kids because you love your spouse and want to raise a child together in a positive, loving environment. That would be good. You could have kids because thats what people do (neutral) or an accidental pregnancy. Or you could have kids to download all of your neuroses and inadequacies into the child and work out your own issues through them (bad).

But to the question about not having kids to not create more suffering, I don't see it as a valid observation because the suffering will be there in the universe in some permutation of being regardless of how many people there are. There just may be one less number in the human realm. They'll be somewhere else though.

[Lombardi4]

I've thought about this, too. Siddhattha Gotama (before he became a Buddha) had a son. But maybe that was an unenlightened decision of his.

If you give someone birth, you are also thereby giving them old age, sickness, and death, and a whole lot of other forms of suffering that are part of life, including psychological sufferings and physical pains. That's what your kid(s) will have to endure. And you gave them birth. On the other hand, it's their vipāka (fruit of kamma from past lives), so you are not wholly to blame.

And on the other hand, as Sarath said, you are giving them a precious and fortunate human birth - more fortunate than the heavens since it is here that you can escape the whole cycle. And you as a Buddhist, if you raise Buddhist children and they become monastics, you've basically given them a chance to escape the whole cycle of saṃsāra! Parents also do much for their children: they raise them up, care for them, teach them. So if you're a good parent, you are doing much good for your children and they can become decent human beings that would be of benefit to society. Even though life will be sometimes painful for them, you can help them out in various ways in their struggles, and since we all have had struggles in our lives, we all have to learn from them in order to become better people, and you can also help them in that regard from your own experience. So, overall parents can be of great benefit to their children (well, there are those parents who abuse their children or just don't care for them, too) and that in itself is a great selfless act.

On the other hand, you are giving them life, and life does contain a lot of suffering, so it might be said that it's better not to bring someone into such a painful existence, but the fact is that those beings are already part of saṃsāra - they just haven't been born from you. Whether you give them life or someone else does, they are bound to be born unless they have already attained Nibbāna. So you're not really giving them life - they already have it.

I have personally decided not to ever have children - even if I didn't plan to be a monk, although that would also depend on my partner, so it's not 100% sure. It's not an easy thing to be a parent, and there can be a lot of suffering not just for the children but for the parents themselves, too - if something were to happen to the children, or if they were to be born with a disability. I personally wouldn't want my children to experience any suffering, since I know from first hand what it is and I've seen it in countless other people, and although it can make you a better person overall, it depends on your ability to overcome it - I've had that ability but not everyone does. Overall, I am too compassionate to put another being through this, so that's why I've decided not to have kids. On the other hand, there is the possibility of a happy family life and lots of joy and interesting experiences, but when I weigh them up, I recognize the inevitable pains and problems, the sicknesses and then the old age and finally death and grief involved. I think it's not worth it - for me. Ultimately, my dream is to become a monk within a few years, so I think it's fair to say I'll remain childless.

[bodom]

Wouldn't that be bringing a child into an existence which is suffering?

Life is not suffering. Life contains suffering. It also contains much joy and happiness as well.

[Lombardi4]

Wouldn't that be bringing a child into an existence which is suffering?

Life is not suffering. Life contains suffering. It also contains much joy and happiness as well.

Yes, that is better put. But you can say that life is unsatisfactory (for us putthujanas). Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkha - all conditioned things are dukkha, dukkha having three levels: (1) dukkha-dukkhata: ordinary suffering and pain; (2) viparinama-dukkhata: suffering due to change, meaning that even pleasant experience are dukkha because they are bound to pass away, and (3) saṅkhāra-dukkhata: basic unsatisfactoriness or dissatisfaction of all conditioned formations. So, it's just a linguistic problem because the term dukkha is so all-inclusive - it includes all three feelings: happiness or pleasure, suffering or pain, and neutral feeling. No English word can really do it justice, but I like 'suffering' as the best translation, because I've seen quite a lot of it in saṃsāra, but since there's also joy and happiness and other positive emotions, you can't say "life is just suffering", but it's best to put is "life contains suffering", indeed. Overall, though, since we're not Enlightened, we are still dwelling in dukkha, and our lives, no matter how pleasant they might be, are still unsatisfactory. To an Enlightened One, however, who is so much happier and at peace than us, our 'unsatisfactoriness' to him or her might seem to be actual suffering!

[DNS]

I look at it this way. Having kids is essentially in and of itself a neutral action. You don't need any special qualities to do it. Your intentions could be good, bad, or neutral. You could have kids because you love your spouse and want to raise a child together in a positive, loving environment. That would be good. You could have kids because thats what people do (neutral) or an accidental pregnancy. Or you could have kids to download all of your neuroses and inadequacies into the child and work out your own issues through them (bad).

But to the question about not having kids to not create more suffering, I don't see it as a valid observation because the suffering will be there in the universe in some permutation of being regardless of how many people there are. There just may be one less number in the human realm. They'll be somewhere else though.

I agree with dharmacorps, that having kids is itself a neutral action, however, depending upon intentions could be either good, bad, or neutral.

I think not having children by itself is also a neutral action. The only way it might be a negative action, possibly, is if one gets married and one's spouse wants to have children, but you don't want to believing it will be too much work or too much cost (assuming one really does have the means to support them).

But otherwise and in most cases having or not having children is a neutral action, no requirement and no extra points either way in Buddhism.

[dharmacorps]

I didn't think of it, but of course not having kids could be a negative thing if you do it because you hate them or have ill-will towards them. But I suppose if you hate kids it is probably better to not have them rather than have them!

I don't have kids, by choice. Me and the wife when we got togethr just couldn't come up with any reason TO have them-- we realized if we did it it would just be because "that's what people do", which isn't good reason. I think you should have good reasons to have kids-- that's just me though. I realize it isn't always a choice though. I've never regretted our choice, and in fact many times been grateful we made that choice.

[pilgrim]

Suffering exists in every life in samsara. Being born as a human is extremely rare and of immense benefit. Only a human can attain to an Ariya. Just consider how much more precious is attaining a birth as a human to a parent who is practising the Dhamma. Denying a being that opportunity when you could give it cannot be a skillful act.

[Lombardi4]

Suffering exists in every life in samsara. Being born as a human is extremely rare and of immense benefit. Only a human can attain to an Ariya. Just consider how much more precious is attaining a birth as a human to a parent who is practising the Dhamma. Denying a being that opportunity when you could give it cannot be a skillful act.

Dear Pilgrim, I agree with everything except the last sentence. I hope you are not saying that it's unskilful not to procreate children if one is a Buddhist. Otherwise, I would be in trouble...

[pilgrim]

Suffering exists in every life in samsara. Being born as a human is extremely rare and of immense benefit. Only a human can attain to an Ariya. Just consider how much more precious is attaining a birth as a human to a parent who is practising the Dhamma. Denying a being that opportunity when you could give it cannot be a skillful act.

Dear Pilgrim, I agree with everything except the last sentence. I hope you are not saying that it's unskilful not to procreate children if one is a Buddhist. Otherwise, I would be in trouble...

Yes, you are right. Perhaps I should word it the other way - Having children cannot be an unskillful act.
Indeed among all the people in the world being born with ready access to the Dhamma is probably the most deserving human birth.

[DooDoot]

But you can say that life is unsatisfactory (for us putthujanas).

I have read in the suttas (SN 22.59) the five aggregates rather than "life" are said to be unsatisfactory. For example, MN 29 & MN 30 say the Holy Life is Liberation:

But it is this unshakeable deliverance of mind that is the goal of this holy life, its heartwood and its culmination. MN 29

Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkha - all conditioned things are dukkha, dukkha having three levels

In the suttas, 'sabbe saṅkhārā dukkha' is found together with the phrase: "Sabbe anicca dukkha". I have not read "anicca" has three levels. In SN 22.59, it appears to be said that because something is anicca (imperament) it cannot bring happiness therefore it is dukkha (unsatisfactory). SN 22.59 does not appear to refer to three levels of dukkha.

(1) dukkha-dukkhata: ordinary suffering and pain;

Where do the suttas say this means "ordinary" suffering? Some suttas, such as SN 36.6, distinguish between suffering over pain & not suffering over pain, which is probably what the meaning of dukkha-dukkhata is.

An untaught worldling, O monks, experiences pleasant feelings, he experiences painful feelings and he experiences neutral feelings. A well-taught noble disciple likewise experiences pleasant, painful and neutral feelings. Now what is the distinction, the diversity, the difference that exists herein between a well-taught noble disciple and an untaught worldling?

SN 36.6

(2) viparinama-dukkhata: suffering due to change, meaning that even pleasant experience are dukkha because they are bound to pass away

The suttas appear to not support your personal ideas above. For example, SN 22.1 states:

And how is one afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind? There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his form changes (vipariṇamati) & alters (aññathā), but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change (vi­pari­ṇāma) & alteration.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

saṅkhāra-dukkhata: basic unsatisfactoriness or dissatisfaction of all conditioned formations.

This interpretation sounds repetitive, redundant & probably requires more reflection.

[PuerAzaelis]

Life is 100% suffering, all the time.

Even if I existed in a totally blissed-out state, for my whole life, I would be suffering.

Since every single thing in the world is a sand castle, and the tide is coming in, life is 100% suffering, all the time.

Even if we knew for certain that our sand castle would never be destroyed, simply by willing it to be, by simply having volition with respect to it, I would be suffering.

[Lombardi4]

Yes, that is better put. But you can say that life is unsatisfactory (for us putthujanas). Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkha - all conditioned things are dukkha, dukkha having three levels: (1) dukkha-dukkhata: ordinary suffering and pain; (2) viparinama-dukkhata: suffering due to change, meaning that even pleasant experience are dukkha because they are bound to pass away, and (3) saṅkhāra-dukkhata: basic unsatisfactoriness or dissatisfaction of all conditioned formations.

The suttas appear to not support your personal ideas above. For example, SN 22.1 states:

And how is one afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind? There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his form changes (vipariṇamati) & alters (aññathā), but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change (vi­pari­ṇāma) & alteration.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Thanks. Could you point where the contradiction is: which ideas of mine contradict the suttas? The sutta you quoted is with regards highly attained Buddhist practitioners, not the vast majority of human or other beings. That is, only a minority of people can be at peace and not suffer over the change and alteration of their bodies or minds, or the loss of well-being or possessions. What the second type of dukkha means is that even pleasant experiences - even in the midst of experiencing them - are already dukkha, according to Bhikkhu Bodhi, because they will surely pass away. Is he talking about the ordinary person only, or can it apply to the type of person you are quoting, I don't know. Are these experiences still dukkha and you, because you are a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones (perhaps a stream-enterer and above?) are simply at peace with that change, or do these saṅkhāras stop being intrinsically dukkha? I'd be interested to hear your view.

[SarathW]

I would argue that a Buddhist having a child is more ethical than not.

Even be borne as any human is ethical as far as we do not teach to become suicide bombers teach them to fight unwanted wars.