Anti-natalist overtones in Buddhism

The Buddha didn't have a son, the Bodhisattva did.

It may not seem simple but it is very simple. If you want to understand what is at the root of truth, if you want to find out how tangled the mind is then what is born and what dies is to be witnessed moment by moment. The reaction to what is born and dies proliferated mindlessly is a distraction from the truth, another tangle in the mind, another brick in the wall.

Buddha's son was born and named before Buddha was Buddha. Back then Sidhartha was just a guy seeking solution to the problem of death.

What he then discovered is that our "notion" of individual death hinges on the "notion" of individual existence. If we think in naive terms, we think in terms of separate things: this THING is born, now the SAME THING lives, now the SAME THING changes, ages, deteriorates, now the SAME THING dies and is gone. This is an identity-based thinking. Even though nothing in the person stays the same from birth to death, we think it is the same person. Even though everything in that person, from food, to air, to thoughts, to impressions, to active impulses, is in continuous exchange with the environment - we still keep thinking in terms of a separate entity born, living, and dying by itself. This primitive way of seeing things is why we experience death as (bad) ending.

That the Buddha's teaching is about notions, the problems the notions create, and liberation from notions - is a standard interpretation of Buddha's teaching that was confirmed and not disproved by every new generation of Mahayana Buddhists studying Dharma from scratch for over 2600 years.

While the Buddha later taught procreation of children can be burdensome & confining, thus previously calling his son "Rahula", this is unrelated to ending suffering.

Keep in mind, when unenlightened Gotama (not yet a Buddha) had a son, Gotama was not yet a Buddha. He was not enlightened. Therefore, Gotama calling his son "Rahula" was not related to being a Buddha.

Like most people, Hari Singh Gour did not understand Buddhism, which is shameful for a highly educated Indian.

In India, today, as always, the word "jati" does not necessarily mean "physical birth" or "procreation". I expect Hari Singh Gour should have understood this.

The Buddha taught suffering ends by ending "jati" ("self & social identity"). When there is no conceiving of "identity", there is no reference point for the conceiving of "aging & death".

When the mind suffers about aging & death, it does not suffer over the aging & death of a physical body or corpse. Instead, the mind suffers over the loss an "identity" or "jati", such as "myself", "my mother", "my father", "my wife", "my daughter", "my son", "my friend", "my computer", "my wealth", etc.

Please read the Pali sutta paragraphs below and try to understand:

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn? When the tides of conceiving no longer sweep over him he is called a sage at peace.’

MN 140

---

And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth.

And what may be said to be subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement? Spouses & children... men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement. Subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement. This is ignoble search.

MN 26

If you struggle to understand MN 26, then SN 12.66 clearly says the cause of aging & death is acquisition (upadhi) or attachment. SN 12.66 does not mention "birth" ("jati"; apart from a general meaning of "cause" or "jatika"), as follows:

Here, bhikkhus, when engaged in inward exploration, a bhikkhu explores thus: ‘The many diverse kinds of suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: what is the source of this suffering, what is its origin, from what is it born (jātika) and produced? When what exists does aging-and-death come to be? When what does not exist does aging-and-death not come to be?’

As he explores he understands thus: ‘The many diverse kinds of suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: this suffering has acquisition as its source, acquisition as its origin; it is born (jātika) and produced from acquisition. When there is acquisition, aging-and-death comes to be; when there is no acquisition, aging-and-death does not come to be.’

SN 12.66