Reasons why you do not want to have kids?

[DNS]

I mean the volitional act of making kids itself isn't right action.

I'm sure glad Suddhodana and Maha Maya didn't agree with that view.

[appicchato]

Would I be allowed to keep my hair?

Sure...

[meindzai]

Again what's missing here is the understanding that whether you have kids or not, these beings will be born into samsara based on their own kamma.

I already tried to point out that the kamma of other beings is not our business.

So if I don't have kids, a being will be born into samsara, if I have kids, that being will still be born into samsara, but with the possibility to encounter the Dhamma (based on that being's kamma).

If you have kids, a being will be born into samsara, based on the being's kamma and this wouldn't be your business.
If you don't have kids, a being will be born into samsara, based on the being's kamma and this wouldn't be your business either. In both cases there would probably be the posibility to encounter the Dhamma, based on that being's kamma, which still wouldn't be your business.

I think one should always ask himself: "Will this action by body, speech and/or mind, create more suffering?"
If the answer is "yes", one shouldn't do it and I don't think that anyone here will seriously tell me that birth won't create suffering. The first noble truth says "birth is suffering" how can someone seriously consider to have kids, that is to say to undertake (volitional) actions which will lead to birth, as right action?
It is not my intention to offend anyone. From my POV things just present themselves this way.
Probably there are unimaginable many circumstances which finally will lead to another birth and in general there's absolutely no problem in having kids but IMHO to have sex with the intention to have kids, I mean the volitional act of making kids itself isn't right action.
best wishes, acinteyyo

If the kamma of a child is not our business, then we have no part in either it's liberation OR it's suffering. You can't say we're not responsible for one but we're responsible for the other.

I'm not really putting forth a pro or anti parent argument here. I've been on both sides of the fence and I'm trying to keep an open mind. (Though deep in my heart I still feel that 90% of the population should be spayed or neutred before their teens). But if I have a kid I would indeed take it as a blessing. If not, I will enjoy the blessings of disposable income. What I suspect here is that Buddhism seems to attract those with world negating and cynical views about family and parentage which seem to be justified by a certain interpretation of the Suttas. The contradictory views here seem to confirm that. "Having kids is selfish and not having them is better becuase I have a better chance of getting liberated." I've not seen any truly altruistic views on the site of either having kids or not having them.

-M

[Ben]

What I suspect here is that Buddhism seems to attract those with world negating and cynical views about family and parentage which seem to be justified by a certain interpretation of the Suttas. The contradictory views here seem to confirm that. "Having kids is selfish and not having them is better becuase I have a better chance of getting liberated."

Excellent observation. I couldn't agree more.
kind regards

Ben

[Mukunda]

Certainly not interpretations based in self delusion.

My mistake. I wasn't aware you were completely free of self delusion.

I seem to have forgotten making, and now can't find, the post where I made that assertion. Perhaps you can point it out for me.

[Mukunda]

If the kamma of a child is not our business, then we have no part in either it's liberation OR it's suffering. You can't say we're not responsible for one but we're responsible for the other.

Exactly. Each being's kamma is their own responsibility. There is Buddhist tradition that places great emphasis on being responsible for saving other beings, but it isn't the Theravada.

I'm not really putting forth a pro or anti parent argument here. I've been on both sides of the fence and I'm trying to keep an open mind. (Though deep in my heart I still feel that 90% of the population should be spayed or neutred before their teens).

This isn't an anti parent argument?

What I suspect here is that Buddhism seems to attract those with world negating and cynical views about family and parentage which seem to be justified by a certain interpretation of the Suttas.

Is it your view that one who places more value on liberation from suffering than pursuing worldly concerns is anti-family? Does one have to create a family in order to respect and cherish the institution? And thinking that "90% of the population should be spayed or neutered before their teens" isn't " world negating and cynical"?

[ground]

To sustain society and its welfare - just to mention an example aspect of focusing on others in the context of one's own life.

Sustaining society is sustaining samsara. If one's focus is sustaining samsara, how does one escape from it?

As already said you are choosing how to see things.
"Society" may also be seen as sentient beings living together and - at least most of them - contributing to the welfare of all under conditions that are as they are. Some of them contribute being motivated to attain their own personal goals, some of them contribute through just doing what has to be done and some of them contribute being altruistically motivated. And of course some of them work against the welfare of all due to selfish motivations.

Kind regards

[Wind]

The whole of Buddha's teaching is to lead to cessation, ending of craving, which in turn ends clinging, which will end becoming, which will end birth, and all the suffering that follows. If our hope is all beings come to cessation, to be liberated from the rounds of births, from samsara, we can logically assume giving birth will come to cessation as well.

[ground]

If our hope is all beings come to cessation, to be liberated from the rounds of births, from samsara, we can logically assume giving birth will come to cessation as well.

This strongly depends on your understanding of "birth" in the context of this thread and your understanding of "birth" in the context of "cessation of birth". As we can see from discussions about 12 links of dependent origination the understanding of "birth" in the context of "cessation of birth" is variable.

Kind regards

[acinteyyo]

I mean the volitional act of making kids itself isn't right action.

I'm sure glad Suddhodana and Maha Maya didn't agree with that view.

I'm glad, too. But how could they, they didn't know about the dhamma. Kamma-vipāka is unthinkable, incomprehensible, impenetrable. Astonishing, amazing and inconceivable what possibly could be the outcome.
Suddhodana first wasn't very pleased about his son eventually going forth and not becoming a king. How much trouble he had trying to avoid the forecasting and what suffering it must have been as he lost his wife. Okay in the end he became an arahant, but birth still brought suffering. What about Maha Maya, she died seven days after the Buddhas birth. It is said that she was reborn in Tusita, but did she ever became an arahant, I don't know.
The whole thing seems to be a quite complex and a somewhat odd issue...

Again what's missing here is the understanding that whether you have kids or not, these beings will be born into samsara based on their own kamma.

I already tried to point out that the kamma of other beings is not our business.

If the kamma of a child is not our business, then we have no part in either it's liberation OR it's suffering. You can't say we're not responsible for one but we're responsible for the other.

You're right but I didn't say that we're responsible for one but not for the other, because I'm not talking about the being's suffering. As you can see I said: "... the kamma of other beings is not our business."

All the suffering starts with birth and in my eyes the parents are at least partially responsible.

I'm not talking about the child's suffering here. Don't get me wrong.

best wishes, acintyyo

[meindzai]

I'm not really putting forth a pro or anti parent argument here. I've been on both sides of the fence and I'm trying to keep an open mind. (Though deep in my heart I still feel that 90% of the population should be spayed or neutred before their teens).

This isn't an anti parent argument?

No, it's just really bad humor. Sorry.

Is it your view that one who places more value on liberation from suffering than pursuing worldly concerns is anti-family?

It's not anti family, but if one is thinking that they don't want kids becuase it will interfere with their goal of liberation, one is clearly thinking selfishly. It may be a necessary paradox, at least initially.

Does one have to create a family in order to respect and cherish the institution? And thinking that "90% of the population should be spayed or neutered before their teens" isn't " world negating and cynical"?

[/quote]

As I said, more of a joke, but yes, definately cynical. Not as sure about world negating. I work on a helpdesk so I tend to think most people are idiots. As I said, Buddhism attracts cynical people and I am certainly one of them. I am being perfectly honest about that, and about my own conflicts on this issue. The problem is how not to read our cynical and world negating views into the Dhamma, which is very easy to do, given that Dhamma teachings go against the stream.

-M

[alan]

Why DO you want to have kids?
They take time, money and energy. And then you get...what?
I've never understood the whole kid thing.

[ground]

And then you get...what?

This is the selfish perspective (what do I get for?). But the selfish perspective is one that causes dukkha.

Kind regards

[Goofaholix]

What a busy thread.

I'm not sure whether it's been mentioned already but as modern westerners we are in a unique position where the question of having children is considered optional.

In most non western cultures having children is still considered very important. In Thailand for example your children are your superannuation, you are reliant on them to look after you in your old age, I think to most Thai people it's inconceivable that you wouldn't want to have kids unless you are a monk or gay. I think a lot of non-western cultures are the same, and even in the West there are religious denominations that encourage their followers to go forth and multiply. Also probably as little as 50 to 100 years ago in the west it was pretty much assumed everybody would want to have kids.

So I think we should be grateful if we are born in an age and culture where we have the choice.

I didn't really want to have kids as I knew my practice would suffer but my wife did, and yes I don't get to do as many formal retreats as I used to. However what I have learned is also valuable. Kids really take you out of your comfort zone and force you to learn to be unselfish, to learn that you can't control everything in your life, so you learn a different mode of practice. This mode of practice I see is very similar to that used by Ajahn Chah, he was always pushing people against the grain, trying to get them out of their comfort zone, so I think there is wisdom to be gained if you're open to it.

I think there is valuable learning in being a parent just as there is in being a monastic, if you are lucky you'll get the opportunity to do both in your lifetime.

[Clueless Git]

I think there is valuable learning in being a parent just as there is in being a monastic, if you are lucky you'll get the opportunity to do both in your lifetime.

Nice post Mr Holix ..

I agree and would go as far to say that parenthood can be a whole lifetimes practice on it's own.

In most non western cultures having children is still considered very important. In Thailand for example your children are your superannuation, you are reliant on them to look after you in your old age,

In any culture care for the old falls upon the young.

Western society simply allows for people to escape the sacrifices of having their own children in the sure and certain knowledge that they will be supported in old age by the children of those who did.