Is it better never to have been born?

[osho]

I often think, philosophically of course or from a Buddhist lens the world is full of miseries. In fact life has too many too many ups and downs and for a little amount of happiness we have to stake so many moments.

Indeed there are moments of joy in life; we enjoy eating, sleeping and loving. We enjoy taking adventures, serving people and writing poems and even praying.

But we have more moments of pains than of joys. We are struggling and our struggles never end.

In fact I believe we are the universe. We are not different from the universe in substance though so much in form or in manifestation. Deep down we are the same stuff as the stars in the sky.

We had eternal happiness in the universe and once we separated from our original state we have sorrows.

Nirvana is to free ourselves from the cycle of birth and death and to attain our original state.

I want to open it for discussion

[Paulclem]

The question "Is it better never to have been born?" is a question about annihilation- the wish not to exist or cease to exist - without going through life. In Buddhist terms, this is a false and unattainable wish, as is its opposite - eternalism in the idea of a soul.

[Serena03]

Sounds to be more from a nihilist's prospective. You will probably never know if it would have been better to cease existence so long as you exist. Pains only dominate the joys if you let them, you must thence learn to dominate your existence if you wish to feel more purposeful in an unbalanced world. And if we may be nothing more than just another form of passive energy, we can still help redistribute this energy back into the universe beneficially.

[Buh4Bee]

:iagree:

[YW1990]

This question sort of reminds me of Sartres philosophy. He believed that we were ultimately in charge of every aspect of our lives, even our emotions. People constantly tell us that we are the only ones who have the choice in dictating and careering our lives through the choices that we make, but don't people feel that there comes a point where something is beyond your mental power? That there are terrains in life where you simply can't overcome?

I do believe that we are the ultimate deciders in where our lives head, and yes we do this through choices. But sometimes life can get so overwhelming that you feel powerless with yourself. Perhaps only certain people will be able to understand this since some people have more of a positive disposition than others.

[Delta40]

http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h411/delta40/images-2.jpg

I'm guided by this!

[Scheherazade]

Knowing what happens to each morsel and drop we consume, we could say it is better not to eat anything at all but we don't.

On the contrary, we try to make the experience as good as possible.

[Buh4Bee]

This question sort of reminds me of Sartres philosophy. He believed that we were ultimately in charge of every aspect of our lives, even our emotions. People constantly tell us that we are the only ones who have the choice in dictating and careering our lives through the choices that we make, but don't people feel that there comes a point where something is beyond your mental power? That there are terrains in life where you simply can't overcome?

I do believe that we are the ultimate deciders in where our lives head, and yes we do this through choices. But sometimes life can get so overwhelming that you feel powerless with yourself. Perhaps only certain people will be able to understand this since some people have more of a positive disposition than others.

For me it is not a positive or negative disposition as much as making a conscious choice that fits my personal framework. I agree there are circumstance that can be out of our control, but even then we have choices about how to deal with consequences or bad luck.

You make me think of addiction and in that case I think it is awfully hard to control yourself. It's a disease and one that is hard to fight. Other difficult struggles can be emotional disturbance.

It may be that we are speaking in overly abstract terms and in extremely general terms. But I like your thoughts.

[Paulclem]

This question sort of reminds me of Sartres philosophy. He believed that we were ultimately in charge of every aspect of our lives, even our emotions. People constantly tell us that we are the only ones who have the choice in dictating and careering our lives through the choices that we make, but don't people feel that there comes a point where something is beyond your mental power? That there are terrains in life where you simply can't overcome?

I do believe that we are the ultimate deciders in where our lives head, and yes we do this through choices. But sometimes life can get so overwhelming that you feel powerless with yourself. Perhaps only certain people will be able to understand this since some people have more of a positive disposition than others.

Are you referring to freedom? We are so lucky those of us who have the wealth and leisure to discuss things like this. So many people do not have the freedom to do this. Yet how free are we?

As I get older I find thoughts I've had for years challenged and questioned - usually down to my prior ignorence. For example I read a detective novel that presented Robert Mugabe in a different light to the one I've been receiving for the past few years. With just a different view, i realised that I can't really rely on my prior sources - the media - as providing balance or anything like truth. I know the media does this, but it is very hard to judge what to accept and what to reject. In fact I can't decide at all!! How do you achieve intellectual freedom in such a partial world?

[Buh4Bee]

Sorry, not to detract from the conversation, but I want to ask this; who says we are supposed to be happy anyway? Why is happiness the ultimate goal? Shouldn't it be a by-product of fulfilling something that one strives for? Isn't true happiness the result of a deeply gratified person? In a sense, you have to struggle for whatever "it is" to really feel the joy of having or obtaining "it".

[Michael T]

We had eternal happiness in the universe and once we separated from our original state we have sorrows.

I want to open it for discussion

The trouble with starting from this premise is that it kind of loads the question for us. If you want to continue the discussion using Buddhist beliefs then you should really only discuss the above points with other Buddhists who may be willing to accept the idea from the start. However – the statement stops any discussion before it has started. How can anyone really argue against the idea of eternal happiness being preferable to misery and suffering?

I would say that there is no empirical evidence for this statement – it’s just religious/spiritual story telling, so people are justified in discounting it from the discussion.

The question then is really – Is something (good or bad) better than nothing?

The answer can only really be subjective as we all live out and experience our own lives.

You could also argue that only by living as long a life as possible would allow you to answer the question completely. Even the most miserable life may turn on one event at the end which could alter the person’s viewpoint and make that person’s life worthwhile to him/her.

The low percentages with regard to suicide, I would argue, would tend to suggest that most people prefer to carry on living rather than seek an early death.

[Paulclem]

Buddhists refer to endless or countless lives, suggesting a continual round of birth and death, rather than an original state - or creation myth.

The 4 Noble Truths refer to the state of suffering we are in as beings caught in the world, whilst it is said that all beings strive for happiness - the striving being a process which may be why more people don't commit suicide.

The question then is really – Is something (good or bad) better than nothing?

The answer can only really be subjective as we all live out and experience our own lives.

Many of the discussions on this forum at root concern the view of the nihilist - extinction, and the view of the eternalists who believe in a Creator God and soul with, Buddhists taking up the middle ground in no Creator God. We undoubtedly live out our own lives - but whatever we think may not correspond to what actually happens. Were you suggesting individual lives play out according to their own subjective beliefs?

[Michael T]

Buddhists refer to endless or countless lives, suggesting a continual round of birth and death, rather than an original state - or creation myth.

Sorry Paul, I’m afraid I know very little about Buddhism, and was referring to the OP’s comment …
“We had eternal happiness in the universe and once we separated from our original state we have sorrows.”



The 4 Noble Truths refer to the state of suffering we are in as beings caught in the world, whilst it is said that all beings strive for happiness - the striving being a process which may be why more people don't commit suicide.

I’m not familiar with ‘The Four Noble Truths’ although the idea of “beings caught in the world” as you put it sounds rather like the idea of ‘Being’ as the Phenomenologist philosophers or even Sartre’s Existentialism was referring to. In which case – yes, why not – I can go along with ‘striving for ‘happiness’ in whatever form ‘happiness’ happens to be for each individual.
I take it you agree that ‘happiness’ is subjective? As for ‘suffering’ – that is surely just as subjective as ‘happiness’ Perhaps one man’s ‘suffering’ is another man’s ‘happiness’? In that case, if there is no objective ‘happiness or ‘suffering’ then perhaps there is just ‘Being’. Take it or leave it – interpret it how you will – give the experiences names if you wish – happy, sad, indifferent, angry – Perhaps they are all just a part of ‘Being’, or ‘what it means to exist.’ Or perhaps even more precisely - what it means to exist with 'Others'

As for suicide, I’m not aware of many death-bed confessions mentioning a wish that the person had committed suicide at an earlier time in their lives – which would suggest to me that most people were content enough just to strive – whether attaining ‘happiness’ or not. Perhaps just ‘being’ is enough for some people, whilst others find comfort from buying into certain religions or spiritualisms.


The question then is really – Is something (good or bad) better than nothing?

Once again, this line when I wrote it, refers to the OP’s statement…

“We had eternal happiness in the universe and once we separated from our original state we have sorrows.”



Many of the discussions on this forum at root concern the view of the nihilist - extinction, and the view of the eternalists who believe in a Creator God and soul with, Buddhists taking up the middle ground in no Creator God. We undoubtedly live out our own lives - but whatever we think may not correspond to what actually happens. Were you suggesting individual lives play out according to their own subjective beliefs?

As individuals ‘experience them’ – of course. The totality of everything I experience in my life will be subjective – for only I occupy my mind and every single part of my ‘world’ is a subjective experience. Try to think of it in the same sort of way that Descartes could only be sure of his own existence in his ‘Meditations on First Philosophy’ or whatever it was. – Hmm, perhaps you are correct - we do indeed seem to be coming around to some sort of nihilism! :rolleyes::wink5:

[osho]

In fact pangs of sufferings, the harrowing circumstances press us to hate life and that may open a platform for a suicide. This was not the intention of the thread when I worded this title.

All I want to say is life is often deemed meaningless and the meagerness of human life in the face of the infinity that has wrapped up us has time and again been spelled out by many schools of thought whether it is religious or philosophical.

We are just specks on eternal flights against the eternity of time and pace. Maybe man though in his miniature is too petite, in thought, in imagination and in dream so universal as if he can defy the powers that made possible his existence .
The spirit of the thread, thus, why we are born hear listlessly unable to understand the reality or the truth of his existence.

[Arrowni]

Isn't this question an entire illusion since the non-existing option is permanently off the table?

[irishpixieb]

Watch Its a Wonderful Life and then come talk.

[MarkBastable]

In fact pangs of sufferings, the harrowing circumstances press us to hate life and that may open a platform for a suicide. This was not the intention of the thread when I worded this title.

All I want to say is life is often deemed meaningless and the meagerness of human life in the face of the infinity that has wrapped up us has time and again been spelled out by many schools of thought whether it is religious or philosophical.

We are just specks on eternal flights against the eternity of time and pace. Maybe man though in his miniature is too petite, in thought, in imagination and in dream so universal as if he can defy the powers that made possible his existence .
The spirit of the thread, thus, why we are born hear listlessly unable to understand the reality or the truth of his existence.


Of course we should also consider the possibility that there's no unapprehended reality or truth to existence, and no meaning in living apart from the living itself, and that's quite enough, so perhaps we should just get on with trying to do something or other, even if it's only getting the kids' breakfast, than which nothing in the universe is more important, honestly.

[osho]

I have read plenty of comments and all are adding something to, critical of commentary on what I have said and many have come up what have not even been expected of, something my level of knowledge and observation could not fathom. Yes I agree with the rest, though I may differ in some points, life is for the sake of life and every bit of what we do matters to us. I often feel even if I am unhappy 6 days a week and happy just one day I feel life is worth living. I like 'the quality of life' idea and even if we live a hundred years worthlessly we are not actually living, and we are pretending to live. Today you can extend your life span through medicines and you can live longer than even hundred years, and many do in developed countries and yet life full of cares and stresses is not worth living as they are in their suicidal moods at their different points. I have talked to a ploughman yesterday drenched with sweat and I talked to him for a while even if I was in a hurry to reach somewhere to accomplish an assignment within preset time. I gave a small bag of food to him and a few chocolates to his children which they took happily and ate devouringly. I am always interested in every small thing and detail and event life and I watched them for a while. They are physically feeble, ill-fed, poorly dressed and the children had no dresses under their waists and the man ploughs barefooted. Yet there was a pure smile on his face. He had small hopes and few cares. He did not care about his morrows and earned for the day only and he did not have big dreams for his children. They do not live longer and the average life span in their community is around 45 and yet their 45 years go better spent or lived than our hundred years.
This makes me think that life is really beautiful even if we are born to poverty.

[MarkBastable]

I have read plenty of comments and all are adding something to, critical of commentary on what I have said and many have come up what have not even been expected of, something my level of knowledge and observation could not fathom. Yes I agree with the rest, though I may differ in some points, life is for the sake of life and every bit of what we do matters to us. I often feel even if I am unhappy 6 days a week and happy just one day I feel life is worth living. I like 'the quality of life' idea and even if we live a hundred years worthlessly we are not actually living, and we are pretending to live. Today you can extend your life span through medicines and you can live longer than even hundred years, and many do in developed countries and yet life full of cares and stresses is not worth living as they are in their suicidal moods at their different points. I have talked to a ploughman yesterday drenched with sweat and I talked to him for a while even if I was in a hurry to reach somewhere to accomplish an assignment within preset time. I gave a small bag of food to him and a few chocolates to his children which they took happily and ate devouringly. I am always interested in every small thing and detail and event life and I watched them for a while. They are physically feeble, ill-fed, poorly dressed and the children had no dresses under their waists and the man ploughs barefooted. Yet there was a pure smile on his face. He had small hopes and few cares. He did not care about his morrows and earned for the day only and he did not have big dreams for his children. They do not live longer and the average life span in their community is around 45 and yet their 45 years go better spent or lived than our hundred years.
This makes me think that life is really beautiful even if we are born to poverty.

Which also absolves you of the responsibility for doing anything about their poverty.

[osho]

Which also absolves you of the responsibility for doing anything about their poverty.

I want to put forth a big YES for there is something I can do and I can do in my small way and yet I am the product of that society that produced you and the society that programmed you to think the way you do. I am part of that not apart. I have my ideals and good will too and yet I have my limitations and I cannot outgrow them. You are within those limits yourself I assume and you cannot therefore expect me to rise above and beyond my parameters.

[MarkBastable]

I want to put forth a big YES for there is something I can do and I can do in my small way and yet I am the product of that society that produced you and the society that programmed you to think the way you do. I am part of that not apart. I have my ideals and good will too and yet I have my limitations and I cannot outgrow them. You are within those limits yourself I assume and you cannot therefore expect me to rise above and beyond my parameters.


You're talking about your capability and your inclination, and I think you're giving rather feeble excuses about those.

However, I was talking about your responsibility, the extent of which might be variable, but the possibility of which is just another ethical problem to be thought about. As you show no reluctance at all to think about almost any other ethical problem that comes up, it's difficult to see why you slide out from under this one so immediately.

Some people might suggest that it's because this issue - unlike issues of theology or existence - might lead to a conclusion that requires a person to actually do something tangible and active about it.

[Vonny]

I think you're giving rather feeble excuses about those....

However, I was talking about your responsibility....

... As you show no reluctance at all to think about almost any other ethical problem that comes up, it's difficult to see why you slide out from under this one so immediately.



:icon_bs:

.

[MarkBastable]

:icon_bs:

.


So, just to be clear about this, your one word response to my post is 'Bullsh it'?

[Vonny]

So, just to be clear about this, your one word response to my post is 'Bullsh it'?



:icon_bs:

.

[osho]

So, just to be clear about this, your one word response to my post is 'Bullsh it'?

This is not a decent reply and do not talk impulsively and learn to respect the opinion and feeling of others. Vonny is a decent and respectful lady and has a lot of dignity and of course that we may not agree at times does not mean we should rashly talk.

[MarkBastable]

This is not a decent reply and do not talk impulsively and learn to respect the opinion and feeling of others. Vonny is a decent and respectful lady and has a lot of dignity and of course that we may not agree at times does not mean we should rashly talk.

Osho - what do you think that little yellow animation means?

[JuniperWoolf]

This is not a decent reply and do not talk impulsively and learn to respect the opinion and feeling of others. Vonny is a decent and respectful lady and has a lot of dignity and of course that we may not agree at times does not mean we should rashly talk.

So you mean to say that a respectful lady with a lot of dignity would not reply in a thread with a one-word(ish) response calling someone else's post "bull****?" If you're wrong, and that's exactly what Vonny intended to do, then what does that imply?