wild fox zen - revisited

The wild fox kōan, also known as "Pai-chang's fox" and "Hyakujō and a Fox", is an influential kōan story in the Zen tradition dating back as early as 1036, when it appeared in the Chinese biographical history T'ien-sheng kuang-teng lu. It was also in The Gateless Gate (Mandarin: 無門關 Wúménguān; Japanese: 無門関 Mumonkan), a 13th-century collection of 48 kōans compiled by the Chinese monk Wumen, as case two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_fox_koan

https://thedailyenlightenment.com/2017/05/do-not-be-a-wild-fox-zen-master/

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/wildfoxzen

http://wildfoxzen.blogspot.com/

antinatalism

Antinatalism

1

what is antinatalism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benatar%27s_asymmetry_argument

Antinatalism or anti-natalism is a philosophical view that deems procreation to be unethical. Antinatalists thus argue that humans should abstain from having children.[1][2][3][4][5] Some antinatalists consider coming into existence to always be a serious harm. Their views are not necessarily limited only to humans but may encompass all sentient creatures, arguing that coming into existence is a serious harm for sentient beings in general.[6]: 2–3, 163 [7][8][9][10]

There are various reasons why antinatalists believe reproduction is problematic. The most common arguments for antinatalism include that life entails inevitable suffering, death is inevitable, and humans are born without their consent (i.e. no one chooses whether or not they come into existence). Additionally, although some people may turn out to be happy, this is not guaranteed, so to procreate is to gamble with another person's suffering. There is also an axiological asymmetry between good and bad things in life, such that coming into existence is always a harm, which is known as Benatar's asymmetry argument.

Benatar's asymmetry argument for antinatalism is an argument based on the difference between harms and benefits viewed in two scenarios — when the person in question exists and when the person in question never exists. The argument, introduced by David Benatar in his book, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, aims to establish that coming into existence is always a harm for the one who's coming into the world.

----

O.b. critique 

Does the potential to reduce harm justify the risk to cause harm?

Does the benefit of harm reduction outweigh the cost of harm?

Who decides? 

--------

Consent to be born" is a concept that is generally considered not legally or ethically viable because a fetus, lacking the capacity to understand or make decisions, cannot provide informed consent to be born; essentially, it's impossible for a baby to agree to be brought into existence before birth. 

Key points about this concept:

• Lack of agency:
  A fetus does not have the legal or mental capacity to make decisions like consenting to be born.
• Philosophical implications:
  The idea of "consent to be born" raises complex philosophical questions about the nature of personhood and the right to life.
• Legal perspective:
  No legal framework currently exists to allow individuals to sue their parents for "being born" due to the lack of ability to provide consent. 

Related terms:

• Informed consent:
  This refers to the principle that a person must have all necessary information about a medical procedure before agreeing to it, which is applicable in pregnancy but not in the context of a fetus consenting to be born. 
• Reproductive rights:
  This encompasses a person's right to make decisions about their own pregnancy, including the option to terminate it.

titta sutra - blind monks and the elephant

.

https://buddhismnow.com/2018/02/16/tittha-sutta-buddhist-parable-of-the-blind-men-and-the-elephant/

At one time the Lord was staying near Savatthi in the Jeta Wood at Anathapindika’s monastery. At that time there were a number of recluses and brahmans, wanderers of various sects, living around Savatthi. And they were of various views, of various beliefs, of various opinions, and they relied for their support on their various views. There were some recluses and brahmans who asserted and held this view: “The world is eternal; only this is true, any other (view) is false.” There were some recluses and brahmans who asserted: “The world is not eternal; only this is true, any other (view) is false.” There were some who asserted: “The world is finite… The world is infinite… The life-principle and the body are the same… The life-principle and the body are different… The Tathagata exists beyond death… The Tathagata does not exist beyond death… The Tathagata both exists and does not exist beyond death; The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist beyond death; only this is true, any other (view) is false.” And they lived quarrelsome, disputatious, and wrangling, wounding each other with verbal darts, saying: “Dhamma is like this, Dhamma is not like that! Dhamma is not like this, Dhamma is like that!”