Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The Buddha left his son when he set off....But where was the *right view, right intention + action*?
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??
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??
0
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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?
I know, off topic. But needed to be pointed out.
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.
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.
Have moved this thread to 'B for B'...
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Even so, "going forth" and abandoning luxury was an unusual decision.
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.
Any views, please.
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.
Gee, just 6 years?
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?
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.
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.
@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.
See comments by:
ajnast4r
Dakini
Ric
Person
& Cinorjer
I believe a father is more than just a source of funds. 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.
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.
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
PD: sorry for my poor english. I hope you understand me.
Blessings.
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!
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.