Questions for a Buddhist

14 Jul

Big Buddha, which I visited last year at Po Lin Monastery on the island of Lantau

I posted these questions on a Buddhist forum. You can follow the discussion here as faithful Buddhists take me to school.  I can already see some holes in my writing, which I’m sure I’ll have to plug as I go along, but hopefully things will clear up in the end.


Let me preface this by saying that I’ve read numerous books on Buddhism in the past, but only one in the past five years, that being How to See Yourself as You Really Are by the Dalai Lama.

I am in agreement with certain points of Buddhist philosophy and of the opinion that meditative reflection can be useful for all people. However, there are still some beliefs within certain Buddhist sects that I find confusing and wish to clear up.

1. If the point of life is to escape existence why do people mate? Don’t Buddhists discourage mating? Monks are generally not allowed to mate because intimate relationships cause all sorts of messy emotions and having a budding family generally detracts from the ability to sit in meditative reflection for extended periods of time. Compassion in the Buddhist monk sense seems necessarily non-specific and all encompassing in theory. I don’t have a solid understanding of how Buddhism is or could be practiced by the laity. How can they possibly raise a family and have the time to reflect enough to escape cyclic existence?

1a. Since life is all suffering isn’t bringing a child into the world essentially cruel?
I could pretty well say the same thing for most religions, i.e. If you’re a Christian and you believe in heaven and hell, then aren’t you playing against the odds by having children? The percentage of people who go to heaven must surely be relatively low. (Wait, wasn’t there a George Carlin sketch about this?)

1b. Taken to the extreme wouldn’t the ideal Buddhist society be devoid of people?
In my imagined Buddhist utopia, everyone would meditate to the point of reaching nirvana. If everyone is in nirvana, then no one is reborn and thus the living human population dwindles to the big 0. I wrote a paper about this when I was in my undergraduate studies, but never received a satisfactory answer. The chances of this happening are close to nil in the world of probability but it’s an interesting thought exercise nonetheless.

2. On the subject of karma, what if the planet and all life ceased to exist? For instance, if some horrible person blew up the world and everyone and everything living in it, who/what would inherit the negative karma presumably created by his (I sincerely doubt it would be a woman) actions? What of those creatures that had not attained nirvana? Is it simply game over?

3. Is consciousness a curse since it instinctively leads to this development of self which is inherently false? It seems that the higher purpose of consciousness is for it to understand itself in order to escape the self to attain selflessness.


Posted by on July 14, 2008 in Religilicious


Tags: , , , , , ,

3 responses to “Questions for a Buddhist

  1. dougrogers

    July 15, 2008 at 10:50 am

    “1. If the point of life is to escape existence why do people mate? ”

    Why not just kill yourself if you want to escape existence? Nope, that is not the point. 🙂

    “1a. Since life is all suffering isn’t bringing a child into the world essentially cruel?”

    See Dukkha at Wikipedia.

    Unfortunately, one easily, all to easily, misunderstood translation of Dukkha is ‘suffering’ . This is not what it means.

  2. metamorphallic

    July 15, 2008 at 1:30 pm

    Thanks for the response Doug.

    I was missing the key word ‘cyclic’, i.e. ‘cyclic existence’.
    Killing myself is easy enough, but according to Buddhism I’d just come back in a lower form. Still not sure what the ‘I’ would be, since there’s no real self to make the transition, but anyway, there’s obviously no progression in that.

    I realize now that ‘suffering’ is a gross mistranslation, with all too negative connotations in English.

  3. dougrogers

    July 16, 2008 at 9:21 am

    As to that cyclic existence…… different schools have different thoughts. It’s really pretty subtle, the distinctions that need to be made – all have different understandings and different practices really for monks and laypeople. It depends too on whether you want to understand it as a religion or a psychology. No easy answer until *you* decide upon your approach direction.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: