One of the 10 wrong views is the view that there are no spontaneously reborn beings. The preceding 2 wrong views in the sequence of 10 are "there is no mother" and "there is no father". 1. Now beings born on earth mostly see beings coming to existence due to a mother and father. Most will never see a "spontaneously reborn being". So how does one form the view that there ARE spontaneously reborn beings when one has never seen such beings? Or is it adequate to simply not reject the possibility of the existence of such beings, but not form the view that there are such beings? 2. Also, if one has the view that there is a mother and father, how does one reconcile these 2 views with the view that there are spontaneously reborn beings, which we are also told are born without a mother and father? Further, say if all the beings we encounter were born spontaneously, how can we form the view that there is a mother and father? Or do the words mother and father mean something other than the biological parents or the first pair of primary carers, e.g. DP verse 294? 3. Why is this view included in the 10 wrong views? The other 9 views does provide a framework for beings to avoid evil and do good. Rejecting this wrong view and accepting its opposing view that there indeed ARE spontaneously reborn beings requires a stretch of the imagination for many. What is the moral purpose? Once again these questions are asked only for academic interest.

I read the following on the internet: > The entire premise of your question is faulty, unfortunately. The > Buddha never, afaik, used a term that could be translated as > "rebirth". In fact, the idea of anything being reborn goes against > orthodox early Buddhist teachings. Throughout the Buddha's teachings, > it is made clear that at the breakup of the body there is birth, not > rebirth - as in birth of new things, not the return of anything old. > > [Internet](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/10113/8157) Did the Buddha teach at the breakup of the body there is birth? Which suttas say this?

Antinatalism is the view that it is ethically wrong to procreate any sort of sentient beings, be it human or otherwise because to exist means also to experience pain, pleasure, suffering, bodily deprivations and psychological frustrations. None of the above obviously is inflicted upon the non-existent. My question is: (i) What is the Buddhist view of this way of thinking; (ii) Why create further imperfect human beings who are capable of experience any sort of dukkha, need, want, deprivation, frustration etc., when these kinds of dukkha (and ills) could've been prevented in the first place? Even in the most ideal case, where a parent brings a child into existence that becomes an enlightened being, it is still ethically indecent to do so because (i) one is gambling with the life of that child; (ii) one is using that child as a means to an end; (iii) that "need" or desired outcome to attain enlightenment is only relevant for existent beings. It seems that Buddhism has some Antinatalist undertones, because although not mentioned in the scripture, if everyone followed the ideal, everyone would strive towards arhatship, and thus stop procreating.

Our Number of births going into the past has to necasserily be finite not infinite.an infinite number of births without a first is logically infathomable.so why did we first incarnate?