The Buddha left his son when he set off....But where was the *right view, right intention + action*?

buddhacoe

When buddha left to search for enlightenment..This would nowadays be classed as selfish..
we couldnt just up and go and leave our family and friends...
So suppose you say buddha didnt know the 8fold path at this time, then after he achieved enlightenment and came up with the 8fold path would he agree that he was *wrong* in leaving his son behind??

i wonder what he would answer to this question?? the *right intention would have been to stay with his family and raise his son up..the right action would have been to be a father to his son...

what are your thoughts??

person

Becoming enlightened and helping the millions of people he did IMO was the greater good. Also later on both his son and wife became his students.

When the Siddhartha was born is was prophecised that we would either become a world leader or reach enlightenment. His father was trying to make the world leader part come true which is why he kept him in the palace free from suffering surrounded by youth and pleasures.

vinlyn

Becoming enlightened and helping the millions of people he did IMO was the greater good. Also later on both his son and wife became his students.

When the Siddhartha was born is was prophecised that we would either become a world leader or reach enlightenment. His father was trying to make the world leader part come true which is why he kept him in the palace free from suffering surrounded by youth and pleasures.

Ah, so as Buddhists we should believe in fortune telling?

Cinorjer

When buddha left to search for enlightenment..This would nowadays be classed as selfish..
we couldnt just up and go and leave our family and friends...
So suppose you say buddha didnt know the 8fold path at this time, then after he achieved enlightenment and came up with the 8fold path would he agree that he was *wrong* in leaving his son behind??

i wonder what he would answer to this question?? the *right intention would have been to stay with his family and raise his son up..the right action would have been to be a father to his son...

what are your thoughts??

It's hard to separate the man from the myth, but here is what most people agree on.

The Gautama Buddha wasn't Buddha when he left his home. He was Siddhartha Gautama, a Prince with an overbearing father, a mother who died days after he was born, a beautiful young wife from an arranged marriage when he a teenager and almost certainly concubines to go help when his wife was tired. Yet he had a burning desire to know why none of these made him happy. Even his son being born did not satisfy his need to search for the happiness this luxury didn't bring. So he renounced it all and snuck out in the middle of the night to begin his search. He had to sneak out. His father had already forbidden his leaving on this quest, and would probably have locked the Prince under guard to keep him safe.

He certainly didn't leave his wife and boy penniless or have to worry about them. They remained at the Palace and with Guatama off to starve himself to death in the forest, renouncing his birthright, his son would have been next in line to inherit.

But that doesn't really answer the question, does it? Well, different times, different values, different customs. His son later became a cherished disciple, according to the sutras. It doesn't say anything about the mother, who probably bore a grudge for the rest of her life.

SherabDorje

Perhaps it's just a metaphorical element based on the values of the time. A wife and a son would conceivably have been considered forms of wealth at that time, and, according to the metaphor, he left behind those forms of wealth too.

Of course no one knows for sure if it's true or not. No one even knows for sure if the Buddha actually existed as the stories say. So a legend or metaphor that fit then does not necessarily fit now.

jll

According to suttas, you are supposed to care for your parents even as a monk. I am not sure what the suttas say about spouse and kids.
Anyway, right view means to see beyond this life. In the modern world, people get divorced, remarry and have many children. How many men are really able to care for their kids if they are estranged from their ex-wives?

Talisman

Yasodhara was ordained a nun by the Buddha.

jll

So was buddha's son, Rahul?

Yasodhara was ordained a nun by the Buddha.

SherabDorje

How many men are really able to care for their kids if they are estranged from their ex-wives?

How many women are really able to care for their kids if they are estranged from their ex-husbands? That goes both ways.

I know, off topic. But needed to be pointed out.

jll

Agreed, genedr equality

How many men are really able to care for their kids if they are estranged from their ex-wives?

How many women are really able to care for their kids if they are estranged from their ex-husbands? That goes both ways.

I know, off topic. But needed to be pointed out.

thickpaper

When buddha left to search for enlightenment..This would nowadays be classed as selfish..
we couldnt just up and go and leave our family and friends...
So suppose you say buddha didnt know the 8fold path at this time, then after he achieved enlightenment and came up with the 8fold path would he agree that he was *wrong* in leaving his son behind??

i wonder what he would answer to this question?? the *right intention would have been to stay with his family and raise his son up..the right action would have been to be a father to his son...

what are your thoughts??

I always found this a bit unsettling too. But we must remember he was just a guy - its what he discovered and taught that's important.

Talisman

Rahula was ordained at a very young age, which grieved Gotama's father greatly, as he had hoped Rahula would be heir to his kingdom in Gotama's place. It was after this that the Buddha instated the age limit on ordination and the requisite of gaining permission from your parents or guardians.

taiyaki

siddhartha had a great situation. money, women, health, power, etc.
he had to leave all that he loved because he had deep questions and wanted to seek truth.
this doesn't have anything to do with right view, intention or action. those occurred after siddhartha became buddha.

if anything it is a nice story that illustrates the spiritual path. we start the path because we are disillusioned by the external world. we seek truth and when we find it we become a beacon of light for those who are suffering.

so in a sense awakening to your true nature is the greatest gift you can give to reality.
either way beautiful story.

Talisman

There were many men and women who left home to ordain as monks when the Buddha taught. It is extremely rare for a Buddha to be born and awoken in one's lifetime, and many used this as an opportunity to acheive the fruit of the Sravaka path to its greatest potential.

zombiegirl

you know, i've always found this topic very interesting. i think it must be a 'thing of the times' that we just can't seem to comprehend these days. after all, jesus told his disciples to do the same thing. i think it must have just been what people assumed the spiritual search required.

Talisman

It's the Buddha we are talking about. He was certainly a man when his path began, but his accomplishments exceed that of all men. The sacrifices he made for the sake of those he loved (including his family) were great.

Cinorjer

It's the Buddha we are talking about. He was certainly a man when his path began, but his accomplishments exceed that of all men. The sacrifices he made for the sake of those he loved (including his family) were great.

And of course, his family sacrificed also.

In Buddha's day, the Prince Siddhartha would have been expected even as a new father to ride off to war and be gone for many years if it was necessary. Romantic love existed (as the Taj Mahal proves), but marriage of royalty always tended to be more an alliance of interests and provide an heir. Leaving to search for the meaning of life was selfish, of course. I suppose it's all down to wondering how can someone motivated by a selfish desire for happiness, as we all start out, bring himself to enlightenment through his own efforts? Amazingly, he did.

federica

newbuddhist.com is a forum created to discuss specific issues pertaining to the forum itself. Technical questions and queries about forum format and usage.

Have moved this thread to 'B for B'...

jll

I know of a 14yr old boy in China who wanted to be a monk without his parents' permission. He would just run off to the temple. His father would catch him and bring him home. His father even locked him in his room to prevent him from running off. But the moment, he got out he would run back to the temple. Eventually, his father relented & allowed him to be ordained as a monk.

Rahula was ordained at a very young age, which grieved Gotama's father greatly, as he had hoped Rahula would be heir to his kingdom in Gotama's place. It was after this that the Buddha instated the age limit on ordination and the requisite of gaining permission from your parents or guardians.

aura

In the days of the Buddha there was no such thing as a nuclear family having and raising children on its own. Marriages were contracted between extended family clans for the purpose of producing "best-of-breed" heirs to be trained and raised by those clans to serve those clans. Individual rights, including the right to life and personal freedom, the right to choose for oneself, the right to marry or not marry and have and raise one's children as one sees fit, and even the right to one's own child, and to preserve that child's life, were non-existent. If a child were born deformed or deficient or sickly, or born in lean times (particularly of female gender in lean times), forced infanticide was common. The survival and prosperity of the clan were held paramount and were strictly enforced by the clan.
The Buddha "went over the wall" after he and his wife fulfilled their contractual obligation to produce an heir.

Do the rest of the prisoners regard one who "goes over the wall" as "selfish" or do they tend to regard him as a lunatic, a visionary, and/or an inspiration?
If they had regarded him as "selfish" there never would have been any followers at all; there never would have been any such thing as "Buddhism" at all.
In his day, no one who looked on him would have called him "selfish."
I do not think people of the modern day fully appreciate the extent and the depth of his own extended suffering and how truly close to death he came to be able to see what he saw and learn what he learned of life, the universe, and everything.
No one could ever look upon such suffering and call it "selfish."

Whoknows

Occasionally I have the same misgivings as well. My solution to this is to be the best lay practitioner that I can be, given my own limitations. On the other hand, I also strongly believe in the great benefit produced by the monastic tradition and wish it would become firmly planted into the West as well. Like two branches of the one tree.

seeker242

When buddha left to search for enlightenment..This would nowadays be classed as selfish..

By who? Not by followers of the way.

Yishai

How can we comment about right view and right intention without completely understanding the culture of Siddhartha's time? Who knows what words were exchanged? Have you truly shed your cultural bias? Or is your vision of right-view and right-intention obscured/coloured by it?

Maybe he set out with intent to return to his wife and child. Maybe he made the right action after becoming enlightened by giving his knowledge to others. His son was a pupil, obviously there was no ill will between the two. And based on what you've heard of his wife, the story depends there.

vinlyn

How can we comment about right view and right intention without completely understanding the culture of Siddhartha's time? Who knows what words were exchanged? Have you truly shed your cultural bias? Or is your vision of right-view and right-intention obscured/coloured by it?

....

Not you specifically, perhaps not you at all, but in our various threads we often have the point of view stated that it doesn't matter which age you are talking about, the principles remain exactly the same.

I'm much more willing to take the era into perspective, along with other cultural values, but many here are not willing to do so.

Talisman

In the days of the Buddha there was no such thing as a nuclear family having and raising children on its own. Marriages were contracted between extended family clans for the purpose of producing "best-of-breed" heirs to be trained and raised by those clans to serve those clans. Individual rights, including the right to life and personal freedom, the right to choose for oneself, the right to marry or not marry and have and raise one's children as one sees fit, and even the right to one's own child, and to preserve that child's life, were non-existent. If a child were born deformed or deficient or sickly, or born in lean times (particularly of female gender in lean times), forced infanticide was common. The survival and prosperity of the clan were held paramount and were strictly enforced by the clan.
The Buddha "went over the wall" after he and his wife fulfilled their contractual obligation to produce an heir.

Do the rest of the prisoners regard one who "goes over the wall" as "selfish" or do they tend to regard him as a lunatic, a visionary, and/or an inspiration?
If they had regarded him as "selfish" there never would have been any followers at all; there never would have been any such thing as "Buddhism" at all.
In his day, no one who looked on him would have called him "selfish."
I do not think people of the modern day fully appreciate the extent and the depth of his own extended suffering and how truly close to death he came to be able to see what he saw and learn what he learned of life, the universe, and everything.
No one could ever look upon such suffering and call it "selfish."

Well put

Ric

One important point is when we think of abandoning the family we tend to think of leaving a mother to take care of the child by herself. Buddha left his family but they were not left poor and to fend for themselves. I think that is an important distinction.

elvisnj

The responsibility to family has been a staple of ethics since man began living in small groups in caves.

There is no excuse for this behavior other than Buddha was obviously a lost and confused person who made a horrible choice. What he did afterwards does not make it ok to leave young child without a father.

We should not be so blinded by our practice that we cant recognize a moral wrong when it is presented to us. Buddha was a person, nothing more. We should not gloss over the founder's mistakes or make him out to be something other than a wise man and good teacher, otherwise Buddhism looks dangerously like a cult of personality.

person

The Buddha lived in a royal estate. At that time, in that situation the family unit wasn't the way it is today. So when he did leave his wife and child they were still well taken care of and loved.

There is a large amount of Buddhism that can be practiced in family life and once someone makes a commitment to a family it should be seen through. There are many revered practitioners and teachers in Buddhism, they all chose a life apart from the world, but off the top of my head I can't think of one that left behind a family to do so.

The near enemy of non-attachment is indifference. Near-enemy means similar but not it. Non-attachment is closer to impartiality, it shouldn't close one off to love but make ones love spread out to others.

@elvisnj I'm sorry for your situation. I don't think your wife has a correct understanding of the teachings and I hope she learns to see that.

Dakini

What I've read is that the wife and child were well cared for in the palace by Gautama's father. It's not like he abandoned them to fend for themselves. And he later returned to take his son as a disciple (which decision his father objected to strenuously, as he felt the boy was too young).

Even so, "going forth" and abandoning luxury was an unusual decision.

misecmisc1

Buddha left his family and it took 6 yrs for him to get totally awakened and that too 24*7. We live in family lives and if we do 1 hour meditation daily, then it means to attain this totally awakened state or Nirvana, it needs 24*365 or 24 years on the condition that we continue today on that state where we left yesterday - which is next to impossible, because some days are too worse than some previous days, so we go back to the initial state which was some days back and again start from there - So all this suggest, the only way to attain Nirvana is to leave the family life and go to a forest, hill etc, otherwise living in this current day world with a family - it seems to me that only meditative states are possible, but not Nirvana.

Moreover, the technological advancements in today's world, which has made our life more busy, is even not considered in above paragraph. Buddha's time was more simple than today's current world time.

Any views, please.

ajnast4r

the Buddha didn't leave his wife and son in a hut, they were well taken care of. After the Buddha was liberated his son became his disciple. What better could he have done for him?

vinlyn

the Buddha didn't leave his wife and son in a hut, they were well taken care of. After the Buddha was liberated his son became his disciple. What better could he have done for him?

That is not the same as fulfilling his responsibility.

misecmisc1

sorry, the mathematical calculation above is wrong. the mathematical calculation becomes 24*365*6 years or 144 years to attain Nirvana considering only 1 hour daily meditation, so it seems to me that Nirvana is not possible leading family life in current world.

Any views, please.

Spaceless

many father left their son for next life due to early departure. without this forum or buddhism forum or monastic, would you be able to know the 8. without knowing this 8 lucky nos, will they be able to enjoy life blissfully and benevolently bless. son can also be denoting as rebirthing mind before complete unfolding or fruition be bliss, be love and be liberatively haaaaa

ajnast4r

@vinlyn what was his responsibility?

vinlyn

@vinlyn what was his responsibility?

My parents divorced when I was 2. I was sent to live with my grandparents. They raised me well. My father always saw to it that my grandparents and I were provided with sufficient money (and more) to take care of my needs. But that was not the same as having an active father to guide me.

We can all appreciate the wisdom that Buddha gave the world. But that does not mean we should excuse the responsibility of a father that has existed throughout the historical world.

ajnast4r

the Buddha only left for 6 years. He didn't abandon his son. What greater gift could a father give to a child than the direct guidance of a Buddha?

vinlyn

the Buddha only left for 6 years. He didn't abandon his son. What greater gift could a father give to a child than the direct guidance of a Buddha?

He didn't know he was going to be "the Buddha" when he left.

Gee, just 6 years?

DharmaField

I would like to join the que of Buddha apologist's and this summarises my position: a) if the Buddha did wrong then were are no consequences. b) if the Buddha did wrong, then it was for a higher reason, c) doing wrong in this case was actually doing right. or d) it was normal for those times.

I think that covers it.

I might add, that the Buddha never did anything major and whatever errors he did, he would always acknowledge openly. Buddhas don't have regrets (except when ordaining women) and do not dwell on past mistakes.

All great religions have perfect origins. Your doubts are because you live in a secular age where the dominant discourse is sceptical of religion. The real question is how do we resolve these two disparate views?

elvisnj

I would like to join the que of Buddha apologist's and this summarises my position: a) if the Buddha did wrong then were are no consequences. b) if the Buddha did wrong, then it was for a higher reason, c) doing wrong in this case was actually doing right. or d) it was normal for those times.

A: I would argue that the consequences were that his wife was left as a single parent and his child was raised fatherless. Just because Buddha threw some money at his family before he left does not mean he fulfilled his obligations to them. And the fact that his son forgave his father and joined him says more about Buddha's son than it does about the wrong itself.

B: Buddha skipping out on his child was for a higher cause? What cause could possibly be higher than the needs of his child during his formative years?

C: I still dont get how Buddha leaving his family was doing right. I understand that Buddha went on to do great things, but it should not have been at the expense of his wife and child. There is always a better option than to sacrifice family for something else.

Just because immorality is widespread, does not mean its ok to partake. Slavery was normal in those times. Was that right too?

Look, I am not saying Buddha was bad. I am saying he was human and that this was a selfish thing to do. He was young and lost at the time like many deadbeat dads. The fact that he came back says that he matured and learned to make better decisions.

He obviously went on to greatness and reconciled with his family which says a great deal about who he became. Everyone makes mistakes. When we finally take responsibility for our mistakes we have moved towards maturity.

person

Its not accurate to say the Buddha just threw money at his family and left. The whole family dynamic was different in his situation than it is for the modern western family. I'm sure his son missed the influence of his father. But even if he was around much of the rearing and education would take place with other tutors and teachers, maids and a whole retinue of palace staff. What was considered family wasn't relegated to merely the immediate nuclear one.

Jeffrey

Your family will be helpless to aid you at your death. As will their family be for them. That is a dance we do alone and it is better to learn and teach dharma.

@elvisnj you may be right though. Remember buddha wasn't yet enlightened when he left his family. Still keep in mind that his son and mother and wife becoming buddhas was a better result than having a good family life. Surely his son had it some rough struggles.

elvisnj

Its not accurate to say the Buddha just threw money at his family and left.

I only made that statement due to the numerous comments attempting to justify Buddha's behavior using the fact that he left his family with money.

See comments by:

ajnast4r
Dakini
Ric
Person
& Cinorjer

I believe a father is more than just a source of funds.

But even if he was around much of the rearing and education would take place with other tutors and teachers, maids and a whole retinue of palace staff.

Tutors, teachers and money are all good things for his family, but I believe a father and son bond goes deeper than schooling and providing. A true father is a role model and leader. Fathers should act in a protective, supportive and responsible way towards their children. Involved fathers offer developmentally specific provisions to their sons and daughters throughout the life cycle and are impacted themselves by their doing so.

Obviously Buddha became a great role model and leader. However, there is no denying that Buddha and his son overcame Buddha's youthful mistakes.

person

Fathers should act in a protective, supportive and responsible way towards their children. Involved fathers offer developmentally specific provisions to their sons and daughters throughout the life cycle and are impacted themselves by their doing so.

My main point about the palace as the family unit is that these things were provided by others. Even in today's world we can see many examples of fatherless children gravitating towards coaches, ministers, teachers as role models. I don't know that that is as good as a loving, responsible father but its not total abandonment. A father that hangs around out of responsibility and goes through the motions because he doesn't want to be there isn't a very good example for a child either.

Buddha saw that there were universal conditions that we all suffer from and it pained him that not only himself but those he cared about and everyone else had to undergo them that he was driven to find a way to end that pain. It's like a family living in poverty in India or Bangladesh today, a father has an opportunity to take a construction job in Dubai, he has to leave his family behind but he is doing so because he cares about their situation and wants to improve it. In the Buddha's case the reason wasn't financial poverty it was of a spiritual/existential nature.

Cinorjer

Of course a father is more than just a source of income. What I'd like to present to you is that "Buddha" did not leave his palace, his father, wife and baby. A young tormented Prince named Siddhartha Gautama left his family to move into the forest and live the life of a starving asthetic holy man. It was only years later that he awakened and became the Buddha.

Leaving a wife and baby is no more an example of Enlightened behavior than is starving oneself. Gautama was not born Awakened. He was tormented by unhappiness without knowing how to escape from it. Having awakened to Dukkha, its cause and elimination, he went on to have a close relationship with his wife and son, although even a Buddha could not change the past.

elvisnj

It's like a family living in poverty in India or Bangladesh today, a father has an opportunity to take a construction job in Dubai, he has to leave his family behind but he is doing so because he cares about their situation and wants to improve it. In the Buddha's case the reason wasn't financial poverty it was of a spiritual/existential nature.

&

Of course a father is more than just a source of income. What I'd like to present to you is that "Buddha" did not leave his palace, his father, wife and baby. A young tormented Prince named Siddhartha Gautama left his family to move into the forest and live the life of a starving asthetic holy man. It was only years later that he awakened and became the Buddha.

Leaving a wife and baby is no more an example of Enlightened behavior than is starving oneself. Gautama was not born Awakened. He was tormented by unhappiness without knowing how to escape from it. Having awakened to Dukkha, its cause and elimination, he went on to have a close relationship with his wife and son, although even a Buddha could not change the past.

Excellent points both! Thanks for the dialogue on this! For a variety of reasons, it has been weighing heavy on my mind lately and I appreciate the different view points.

elvisnj

driedleaf

If you take away the conceit, the clinging to self, and the attachment to self, you will have right view, right intention, and right action.

I_AM_THAT

Seeking a path of true enlightenment will seem selfish to the average lay person. These are thoughts/choices the true seeker must confront and deal with. However, through the teachings of the Buddha we as average lay people can now practice while being in relationships and still achieve a level of freedom. Remember it is up to the individual on how far they take their practice, without fear, without regret.

Arthurbodhi

Siddhartha Gautama really loved his family, and because of that he left, he could not help them if he stayed with them. He was like a father that go far away for an opportunity job to sustain his family. It was a sacrifice, yes, but the attained was better in the end.

PD: sorry for my poor english. I hope you understand me.
Blessings.

vinlyn

Siddhartha Gautama really loved his family, and because of that he left, he could not help them if he stayed with them. He was like a father that go far away for an opportunity job to sustain his family. It was a sacrifice, yes, but the attained was better in the end.

PD: sorry for my poor english. I hope you understand me.
Blessings.

I'm just curious...how do you know he "really loved his family"? I'm not saying he didn't, but how do you know?

What do you mean that, "he could not help them if he stayed with them"?

How exactly is it the same as a father who goes away to find a job, when Siddhartha was wealthy royalty?

Please don't worry about your English. It's fine, and we adjust to that in this forum. Glad you're here with us!

Arthurbodhi

Hi vinlyn.
I learnt about the life of the Buddha in the same way than everybody else, that is reading or listening his history. And in this history I never saw prince Gautama feelings to his family with indifference or with disdain. Only love is the feeling that I can deduce.

Siddhartha need to left his family to search a cure to samsara, to suffering. It's like left your home for search in all the world for a medicine for your loves ones.

This is why I said that is like a father that go for a job. Is not for money that he left, he left for give a better life to his family.

Sorry if I'm not very clear.

Blessing.