Should Buddhism be understood as a weak version of antinatalism?
I was working with the dictionary definition of esoteric, which is "intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest". Dharma is something you have to seek out, whereas it should be taught in every school.
-
-
I think teaching dharma in school if fine but good luck that that, realistically speaking. However, I think the definition, while plenty of wiggle room open for meaningful discussion, is exactly the definition of dharma. Not by design or intent. Just, not everybody is into it.
-
Agreed. Realistically, I don't see that happening any time soon -- if ever. Which is a real shame, because I think the project of building a functional civilization is doomed unless we collectively wake up first. We can't create a better reality if we're deluded about this one.
-
So do you see the inability to collectively wake up and the deluded nature of a society as a reason for one not to practice?
-
Of course not. I don't think I implied that.
-
My apologies. I do not mean to put fourth that you implied that however I am just asking what do you think?
-
No apologies necessary. I think practicing is worthwhile even if you live in a society you don't think is ideal. When it comes down to it, the only thing I know with certainty is that there is suffering. So it's worthwhile to try to reduce one's own suffering and that of others.
-
Someone pointed out to me that it isn't really useful to fantasize abstract notions of an enlightened society. I think that's a good point. It isn't all-or-nothing. What can we do right now? We can help ourselves and others around us, because that is what's directly addressable.
-
Yeah, I think both statements are very good points.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.