Is Buddhism Anti-Life?

[qoheleth]

Sorry to start with a provocative title, but I have wrestled with this for a long time. In my "search" for the best way to live, no "path" makes as much immediate and practical sense to me as that of Buddhism, and particularly Theravada. I have studied it alongside many other traditions, Eastern and Western, and while I have tried to make meditation a part of my life for the last ten years, my practice has been inconsistent and my orientation rather confused. My apprehension regarding Theravada Buddhism is that it is, in a sense, a saying "no" to life. Am I incorrect in seeing it this way? I mean, isn't the ultimate object in Buddhism to no longer "become"? To cease being reborn? Is it finally an acceptance that all is really futile in the end (all except for the 8FP, that is), a kind of nihilism? Can anyone perhaps suggest a more positive approach to the path?

Thanks in advance, and forgive me if you find this line of questioning offensive. Or redundant.

[Digity]

The problems with life are observable by you. Even if Buddhism didn't exists there would still be death, disease and all the other kinds of suffering in this world. That's just a fact. Suffering is a fact. The Buddha didn't create suffering. It's just there. Buddhism isn't anti-life...it's just saying there's suffering in this world and there's a path out from this suffering. Would you deny the first noble truth about dukkha? To me Buddhism is just realistic. It doesn't sugar coat reality. It says it the way it is. If you want to label it anti-life that's fine, but all it's doing it pointing out what's really going on.

[perkele]

Is it finally an acceptance that all is really futile in the end (all except for the 8FP, that is)

I would say that in the final analysis it is so. All is futile in the end except for the 8FP.

a kind of nihilism? Can anyone perhaps suggest a more positive approach to the path?

How could that be called nihilism if the noble eightfold path can be seen as the purpose that leads towards a final aim (nibbana)?

[Kim OHara]

Hello, qoheleth,
You are incorrect, but not totally incorrect. The goal is not escaping from life but ending suffering, as Digity said.
But the Theravada has often been accused of negativity - don't do this, don't do that, don't enjoy the other. The 'don't enjoy, don't participate' message can sometimes come through louder than the 'cultivate insight, compassion and equanimity' message. It's a fault with how the teachings are presented.


Kim

[rowyourboat]

Hello quoheleth,

Most religions accept that what they are seeking is better than what is now (therefore most religions accept that things are unsatisfactory now and can be improved upon).

With metta

Matheesha

[nobody12345]

No.
Life and death are the opposite side of the same coin.
True Buddhism is anti-Samsara.
Metta.

[amrad]

It could be a wester interpretation of suffering, dhuka or unsatisfactoriness. Perhaps westerners take it all a bit too serious. I dont know, but when I visited Thailand the people and especially the monks seemed deeply happy. Its hard to trans locate a thing as deeply rooted as religion.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

My apprehension regarding Theravada Buddhism is that it is, in a sense, a saying "no" to life. Am I incorrect in seeing it this way? I mean, isn't the ultimate object in Buddhism to no longer "become"?

Yes, the object is to no longer "become", but precisely what becoming entails is a subtle subject. I think it's wrong to think that becoming is equated to the ontological existence or continuance of a 'sentient being' or "life", as you call it.

The responses you've received above, whilst being different, are all different ways of approaching your question. It would be difficult to find a consistent, standardised and universally acceptable "Theravada answer" to your question - much depends on key terms such as bhava (becoming), punabhava (repeated becoming) and jati (birth) and what they actually mean.

Metta,
Retro.

[Nibbida]

In addition to what has been said already, consider the things that Buddhism encourages us to develop: mindfulness, concentration, joy, patience, kindness, compassion, equanimity, wisdom, etc. These are things that enrich the quality of a person's life. The only thing we're learning to drop is delusion and fruitless clinging. Good riddance!

[kirk5a]

I recently found this interesting bit by Luong Pu Dulaya 'Dun' Atulo.

"Hasitupabada: The citta smiling without any intention to smile. This means that even when one does not intend to smile, the citta smiles on its own."

"The third motiveless thing of the citta, the self-smiling citta that has no intention to smile, arises only in the citta of the Noble Ones. It doesn't occur in the worldly people because this only occurs at the level of a citta beyond the illusions of the Sankhara. This citta is no longer concerned with the world of illusion because it understands the causes and conditions of the thought constructions. It is, of itself, free."

Self-smiling and free. Huh. That's not any kind of nihilism that I know of.

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... _Atulo.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[qoheleth]

Thanks for all of the insightful and encouraging responses. Much appreciated!

[Lazy_eye]

Walpola Rahula, in "What the Buddha Taught", discusses questions similar to this. Chapters 2 and 8 especially.

The First Noble Truth is generally translated by almost all scholars as 'The Noble Truth of Suffering' and it is interpreted to mean that life according to Buddhism is nothing but suffering and pain. Both translation and interpretation are highly unsatisfactory and misleading. It is because of this limited, free and easy translation, and its superficial interpretation,that many people have been misled into regarding Buddhism as pessimistic.

...Buddhism is neither pessimistic nor optimistic. If anything at all, it is realistic, for it takes a realistic view of life and of the world...It tells you exactly and objectively what you are and what the world around you is, and shows you the way to perfect freedom, tranquility and happiness.

Also later:

Buddhism is quite opposed to the melancholic, sorrowful, penitent and gloomy attitude of mind which is considered a hindrance to the realization of Truth. On the other hand, it is interesting to remember here that joy (piti) is one of the seven bojjhamgas or 'factors of illumination', the essential qualities to be cultivated for the realization of Nirvana.

[Goedert]

Sorry to start with a provocative title, but I have wrestled with this for a long time. In my "search" for the best way to live, no "path" makes as much immediate and practical sense to me as that of Buddhism, and particularly Theravada. I have studied it alongside many other traditions, Eastern and Western, and while I have tried to make meditation a part of my life for the last ten years, my practice has been inconsistent and my orientation rather confused. My apprehension regarding Theravada Buddhism is that it is, in a sense, a saying "no" to life. Am I incorrect in seeing it this way? I mean, isn't the ultimate object in Buddhism to no longer "become"? To cease being reborn? Is it finally an acceptance that all is really futile in the end (all except for the 8FP, that is), a kind of nihilism? Can anyone perhaps suggest a more positive approach to the path?

Thanks in advance, and forgive me if you find this line of questioning offensive. Or redundant.

Buddhism help us to get out of conditioned becoming.

Maybe you are not aware, but you might conditioning your practice. Do not get so serious in the practice, be light on yourself.

[unspoken]

Life is suffering
We practice to end suffering
Ending life=Ending suffering---thats what you think

Life is (got) suffering
We practice to end suffering
Ending suffering (in life) but not ending life itself--- that's what we think and what we do

[AnonOfIbid]

no