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*?
And all that remain are the teachings set in motion by Buddha.
I agree, maybe his history is fiction, or maybe wasn't a prince Siddhartha at all. But the teaching really exists to our age and this we can experience if really work in our life.
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.
I guess my point is this -- that if we want to be knowledgeable Buddhists, we have to be very careful to find truth, and not make assumptions. There are not more than a few paragraphs written about Siddhartha's family life. We don't even definitely know the year he was born or the year he died. Where he was born is not a total certainty. From what I've read, the first biographical accounts of Siddhartha's life were written 100 or more years after his death.
So I am very uncomfortable making conclusions about what happened in a time when we have little to no real evidence. I am more comfortable reading the principles attributed to Buddha, and making judgments about the wisdom therein.
Incidentally, one aspect of Siddhartha leaving his son that has not been mentioned is that in all probability, the mother had died at or shortly after the son's birth.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited January 2012
Incidentally, one aspect of Siddhartha leaving his son that has not been mentioned is that in all probability, the mother had died at or shortly after the son's birth.
In the fog of history its hard to tell what is the real truth. The traditional account is that Yashodhara eventually became a nun, followed the Buddha, and became an arhat.
Incidentally, one aspect of Siddhartha leaving his son that has not been mentioned is that in all probability, the mother had died at or shortly after the son's birth.
In the fog of history its hard to tell what is the real truth. The traditional account is that Yashodhara eventually became a nun, followed the Buddha, and became an arhat.
And, as you indicate, that is very much the problem. Accounts I have read have said that she died 7 days after Siddhartha's death.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Incidentally, one aspect of Siddhartha leaving his son that has not been mentioned is that in all probability, the mother had died at or shortly after the son's birth.
In the fog of history its hard to tell what is the real truth. The traditional account is that Yashodhara eventually became a nun, followed the Buddha, and became an arhat.
And, as you indicate, that is very much the problem. Accounts I have read have said that she died 7 days after Siddhartha's death.
His mother is said to have died 7 days after his death, perhaps the account had them mixed up.
I don't remember now the sources I read about this, so I can't reference them, but even in Wikipedia it says, "Queen Māyā died seven days after the birth of the Buddha-to-be Bodhisatta and was reborn in the Tavatimsa Heaven, where the Buddha later preached the Abhidharma to her. Her sister Prajāpatī (Pāli: Pajāpatī or Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī) became the child's foster mother."
Incidentally, one aspect of Siddhartha leaving his son that has not been mentioned is that in all probability, the mother had died at or shortly after the son's birth.
In the fog of history its hard to tell what is the real truth. The traditional account is that Yashodhara eventually became a nun, followed the Buddha, and became an arhat.
And, as you indicate, that is very much the problem. Accounts I have read have said that she died 7 days after Siddhartha's death.
I read that was some days before Buddha's death. And the Buddha and Rahula, were happy that she attained nirvana. Maybe I'm wrong but I think that was in Sutta that now I don't remember the name.
I don't remember now the sources I read about this, so I can't reference them, but even in Wikipedia it says, "Queen Māyā died seven days after the birth of the Buddha-to-be Bodhisatta and was reborn in the Tavatimsa Heaven, where the Buddha later preached the Abhidharma to her. Her sister Prajāpatī (Pāli: Pajāpatī or Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī) became the child's foster mother."
But that was the mother of prince Siddhartha, not his wife Yasodhara.
Incidentally, one aspect of Siddhartha leaving his son that has not been mentioned is that in all probability, the mother had died at or shortly after the son's birth.
In the fog of history its hard to tell what is the real truth. The traditional account is that Yashodhara eventually became a nun, followed the Buddha, and became an arhat.
And, as you indicate, that is very much the problem. Accounts I have read have said that she died 7 days after Siddhartha's death.
You guys are confusing Siddhartha's mother with the mother of his son. Yasodhara was Siddhartha's wife.
You're right in one respect, I did confuse the issue back several posts. I apologize.
But let me restate my primary point. We cannot take a few paragraphs written more than 100 years after Buddha's death, and assume that we can interpret Buddha's sentiments in his actions.
And let me restate it in another way. A fair person uses the same standards to judge all religions. If you are going to tell me that every word in Buddhist scriptures are facts, then for me to respect your position, you're going to have to accept that every word in Christian scriptures (or Muslim scriptures, etc.) are facts.
And therefore, from my point of view, the wise thing to do is let the principles stand on their own merit, because principles can stand even if the facts of the history don't support them.
vinlyn. When you said "she died 7 days after Siddhartha's death.", you really mean Siddhartha birth?
Siddhartha's mother died after Siddhartha's birth. Sid's wife later became a nun and arhat.
Daikini, I am talking about Queen Maya.
That's my point. You were talking about his mother, but person and Arthur confused that with S's wife.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Incidentally, one aspect of Siddhartha leaving his son that has not been mentioned is that in all probability, the mother had died at or shortly after the son's birth.
Yeah, I thought you were talking about Siddartha's wife here. :dunce:
His son was left within the castle with an overbearing father. Maybe he knew his son would be fine.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I think however, there is much to be said for the point @Arthurbodhi made. The Buddha is often referred to as a doctor who prescribes a medicine, and it is beholden of the patient (that would be us) to take the medication, as prescribed, in order to alleviate his suffering... The theory that Siddharta Gautama left his young son and wife, in order to pursue a spiritual quest and find answers to the questions that had been prompted by the things he had seen outside the palace walls, has its merits....certainly we can never know the true compunction that drove him to make such a decision, but given that the man had to be intrinsically good, wise, studious and compassionate to begin with, I personally am happy to suppose that the decision must have caused him a great deal of anxiety. but his determination to fulfil his quest, over-rode his attachment to his family... and as has been pointed out, he knew that whatever he was doing, he was not abandoning them to poverty, destitution and homelessness.... And as he had already been faced with the undeniable fact that every single person, without exception, was going to get old, become sick and frail, and die - he understood this to be his fate, and that of the people he most loved. so i can see the sense in his wanting to get the meaning of Life under his belt - in order to better accept this with a serene and altruistic attitude, and perhaps help others accept it too.
He must have been a difficult, obstinate, curious and inquisitive man to live with.... there must always have been something on his mind, and his insistence on discovering the Truth, must have both irritated and alarmed others, because of his dogged determination.
we have absolutely really no way of knowing, either, whether he had in fact ever confided his concerns to his wife.... and we can never know whether really, deep down, she understood his actions. Even perhaps, if she didn't like them..... all food for thought. All hypothesis, but whatever the situation, I'm glad he did what he did.....
I can agree with everything you said there @federica, because you are stating them as -- well, shall I say probabilities, rather than pure fact.
Don't get me wrong, what I say was only my personal opinion, nothing more, I don't see this like real facts, and I agree with you when you say that we don't know exactly what Siddhartha was thinking. My mistake was put "he really loved his family" instead put "I think he loved his family".
I don't think fathers are as overbearing with grandkids as with their own children. Anyway, "overbearing" was just one person's description. And the point several people made of saying the wife and child would be "fine" without Siddhartha referred to the fact that all their material needs would be taken care of, that much must have been obvious to the Buddha. He wasn't leaving them in the lurch in that regard.
It's becoming almost comical the way we're speculating about the details of the Buddha's family life.
How could the Buddha walking out on his family be without some negative consequences? Obvious answer: Clearly he wasn't perfect. The more I study it, the Buddha's perfection is the projection of generations of apologists, including those in this discussion. Is post-rationalisation necessary for a religion's survival? Historians can track this tendency to guild the dharma continued over time. I suspect that in premodern times religions didn't survive without perfect origins, as reality can't compete with fantasy. Maturity is seeing into reality as it is.
Kant speaks of a different enlightenment: " Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] "Have courage to use your own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment. "
In a post-enlightenment era, perhaps we should not throw out the baby for the bathwater?
It is because we suffer emotionally when we are threatened. This is the human condition. But there is a buddhist path which we must hear and think about and understand so that we see that there is not a self-existence to defend. And thus we aren't overwhelmed in sickness old age and loss etc The teacher is necessary to help the student to understand the teaching and to serve as a model of behaviour.
Over the many posts in this thread, I think the answer has been given if you take parts and posts and put them together. Also when he left his kingdom, he was not enlightened, far from it. He would have still been acting under ignorance but it was a good choice. Also as somebody pointed out, times were very different in that period, it would not be viewed in the same way as if it happened in this day and age.
His son was left within the castle with an overbearing father. Maybe he knew his son would be fine.
"Maybe"? How could he have not known?
And would he be fine with an OVERBEARING father? I guess I don't understand.
My wife has an overbearing mother. I usually see it as a love tho it does not seem right. But i think he simply knew his son would be well and ok. Im a father if there was any doubt to my daughters well being I would be right there.
His son was left within the castle with an overbearing father. Maybe he knew his son would be fine.
"Maybe"? How could he have not known?
And would he be fine with an OVERBEARING father? I guess I don't understand.
My wife has an overbearing mother. I usually see it as a love tho it does not seem right. But i think he simply knew his son would be well and ok. Im a father if there was any doubt to my daughters well being I would be right there.
Oh, trust me, I know about overbearing relatives. I was raised by my grandmother, the Queen of Overbearing Relatives. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
His son was left within the castle with an overbearing father. Maybe he knew his son would be fine.
"Maybe"? How could he have not known?
And would he be fine with an OVERBEARING father? I guess I don't understand.
My wife has an overbearing mother. I usually see it as a love tho it does not seem right. But i think he simply knew his son would be well and ok. Im a father if there was any doubt to my daughters well being I would be right there.
Oh, trust me, I know about overbearing relatives. I was raised by my grandmother, the Queen of Overbearing Relatives. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
yes my wifes mother is very over bearing. I try to understand her and let my anger about it go.
According to scriptures, the right view of fathers is in search of money to support son. Prince Sid was in search of mind so that all fathers and sons are enjoying unending wealth of peace n joys. According to scripture, the culture of india is wife inferior to husband and could not question. Prince Sid was also in search of dignity of female so that they stand equal with male. without buddha, both female and male suffer ignorantly. All fathers possess wealth, monks posess nothing, all their wealth supported from the monastery, monks cannot enjoy most of secular activities like golfing, bowling etc, and they did not complain and alot of these sportsperson were enjoying their sports more blissfully from the benefit of buddha dharma teaching. awesome.
I guess my point is this -- that if we want to be knowledgeable Buddhists, we have to be very careful to find truth, and not make assumptions. There are not more than a few paragraphs written about Siddhartha's family life. We don't even definitely know the year he was born or the year he died. Where he was born is not a total certainty. From what I've read, the first biographical accounts of Siddhartha's life were written 100 or more years after his death.
Siddartha's followers wrote down everything they could remember him ever saying as far as the dharma, in sutras, in the days immediately following his death, so as to keep it untainted. Perhaps actual biographical accounts came later, but I think you're thinking of jesus.
As I understand it, "The Buddha" left no one or anything. Siddhartha did. He was not a Buddha at that time. His actions were those of Siddhartha Gautama; an unenlightened individual. Not those of a Buddha. The Eight-fold Path had not even come into existence at that point.
Siddartha's followers wrote down everything they could remember him ever saying as far as the dharma, in sutras, in the days immediately following his death, so as to keep it untainted.
That’s the story. The oldest known manuscripts however date from five hundred years later.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited April 2012
Mr. Siddhartha is dead.
And all that remain are the teachings set in motion by Buddha.
I agree, maybe his history is fiction, or maybe wasn't a prince Siddhartha at all. But the teaching really exists to our age and this we can experience if really work in our life.
That's it exactly. I guess that's why Buddhism doesn't suffer like some others in this regard. The Dharma speaks for itself and doesn't rely on fancy gimmicks.
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.
This!!!!
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
One year after the Buddha's death the first Buddhist council convened and they verbally recited all the teachings, but the pali scriptures weren't actually written down until the fourth council in either the 1st century BCE.
Siddartha's followers wrote down everything they could remember him ever saying as far as the dharma, in sutras, in the days immediately following his death, so as to keep it untainted. Perhaps actual biographical accounts came later, but I think you're thinking of jesus.
No, I'm not thinking of Jesus.
If you have a source for things being written down immediately following his death, please provide it. I've never read that. I'd like to if it's out there.
After the Buddha passed away a meeting was held to preserve his teachings. ... The First Buddhist Council collected together and arranged the Buddhist Scriptures known as the Pali Tipitaka, which have since been handed down from one generation of monks to another. In the early days of Buddhism, there was no written record of the teachings. The monks had to memorise the scriptures and then teach the next generation of monks in the same way, it being an oral tradition.
About 83 B.C., during the reign of the pious Sinhalese king, Vatta Gamani Abhaya, a Council of Arahants was held in Sri Lanka and the Tipitaka, for the first time in the history of Buddhism, was put down in writing on ola leaves. http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/2_32lbud.htm
After the Buddha passed away a meeting was held to preserve his teachings. ... The First Buddhist Council collected together and arranged the Buddhist Scriptures known as the Pali Tipitaka, which have since been handed down from one generation of monks to another. In the early days of Buddhism, there was no written record of the teachings. The monks had to memorise the scriptures and then teach the next generation of monks in the same way, it being an oral tradition.
About 83 B.C., during the reign of the pious Sinhalese king, Vatta Gamani Abhaya, a Council of Arahants was held in Sri Lanka and the Tipitaka, for the first time in the history of Buddhism, was put down in writing on ola leaves. http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/2_32lbud.htm
So that would mean actually written down about 400 years later, if my math is correct.
Of course, the Buddha was a very selfish, cowardly person. Only selfish, cowardly people give up luxuries, women, leave palaces to live in the wilderness, give up their royal status to become beggars etc. etc.
Of course, the Buddha was a very selfish, cowardly person. Only selfish, cowardly people give up luxuries, women, leave palaces to live in the wilderness, give up their royal status to become beggars etc. etc.
It's kind of easy to write that because Buddha was successful. What would you say, however, if the story was the same but Siddharta had failed in his quest...like so many others did?
Of course, the Buddha was a very selfish, cowardly person. Only selfish, cowardly people give up luxuries, women, leave palaces to live in the wilderness, give up their royal status to become beggars etc. etc.
It's kind of easy to write that because Buddha was successful. What would you say, however, if the story was the same but Siddharta had failed in his quest...like so many others did?
It is likely that you didn't understand the post. Read it again.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Of course, the Buddha was a very selfish, cowardly person. Only selfish, cowardly people give up luxuries, women, leave palaces to live in the wilderness, give up their royal status to become beggars etc. etc.
It's kind of easy to write that because Buddha was successful. What would you say, however, if the story was the same but Siddharta had failed in his quest...like so many others did?
If a doctor try to get a cure to cancer but he fail, anyway he had a good intention.
Traditionally, eastern Buddhists give the date of Buddha’s death as 949 B.C. (with variants including 878 B.C. and 686 B.C.), while northern Buddhists gave 881 B.C., and the southern Buddhists provide 543 B.C. as the correct year. More recent scholarship began to settle on the year 486 B.C. or even 368 B.C., so many textbooks usually fudge the issue and say he was born around 500 B.C. All methods rely on lists of kings and councils recorded in the Buddhist tradition itself, tied into known history through the Mauryan Emperors Candragupta and Asoka.
There is one big problem when you look for the historical Buddha: he wasn’t there. Literally, there is no evidence of the Buddha being spoken of or depicted anywhere near that time. Neither the Buddha nor Buddhism appears in the art, archeology, or written record of ancient India until the first century A.D. The skeptical mind is left wondering, why was there no Buddha until then? Why did Buddhism make absolutely no appearance for over 600 years after he was supposedly born? And why do so many people today talk about him as if he factually existed that early?
Comments
And all that remain are the teachings set in motion by Buddha.
So I am very uncomfortable making conclusions about what happened in a time when we have little to no real evidence. I am more comfortable reading the principles attributed to Buddha, and making judgments about the wisdom therein.
Incidentally, one aspect of Siddhartha leaving his son that has not been mentioned is that in all probability, the mother had died at or shortly after the son's birth.
vinlyn. When you said "she died 7 days after Siddhartha's death.", you really mean Siddhartha birth?
But let me restate my primary point. We cannot take a few paragraphs written more than 100 years after Buddha's death, and assume that we can interpret Buddha's sentiments in his actions.
And let me restate it in another way. A fair person uses the same standards to judge all religions. If you are going to tell me that every word in Buddhist scriptures are facts, then for me to respect your position, you're going to have to accept that every word in Christian scriptures (or Muslim scriptures, etc.) are facts.
And therefore, from my point of view, the wise thing to do is let the principles stand on their own merit, because principles can stand even if the facts of the history don't support them.
But again, my point is that we cannot take a few paragraphs and then begin to say what Siddhartha was thinking.
The Buddha is often referred to as a doctor who prescribes a medicine, and it is beholden of the patient (that would be us) to take the medication, as prescribed, in order to alleviate his suffering...
The theory that Siddharta Gautama left his young son and wife, in order to pursue a spiritual quest and find answers to the questions that had been prompted by the things he had seen outside the palace walls, has its merits....certainly we can never know the true compunction that drove him to make such a decision, but given that the man had to be intrinsically good, wise, studious and compassionate to begin with, I personally am happy to suppose that the decision must have caused him a great deal of anxiety.
but his determination to fulfil his quest, over-rode his attachment to his family... and as has been pointed out, he knew that whatever he was doing, he was not abandoning them to poverty, destitution and homelessness....
And as he had already been faced with the undeniable fact that every single person, without exception, was going to get old, become sick and frail, and die - he understood this to be his fate, and that of the people he most loved.
so i can see the sense in his wanting to get the meaning of Life under his belt - in order to better accept this with a serene and altruistic attitude, and perhaps help others accept it too.
He must have been a difficult, obstinate, curious and inquisitive man to live with.... there must always have been something on his mind, and his insistence on discovering the Truth, must have both irritated and alarmed others, because of his dogged determination.
we have absolutely really no way of knowing, either, whether he had in fact ever confided his concerns to his wife.... and we can never know whether really, deep down, she understood his actions.
Even perhaps, if she didn't like them.....
all food for thought.
All hypothesis, but whatever the situation, I'm glad he did what he did.....
Sorry if I expressed myself poorly early.
Blessing.
It's becoming almost comical the way we're speculating about the details of the Buddha's family life.
Kant speaks of a different enlightenment: " Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] "Have courage to use your own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment. "
In a post-enlightenment era, perhaps we should not throw out the baby for the bathwater?
The oldest known manuscripts however date from five hundred years later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Buddhist_Council
If you have a source for things being written down immediately following his death, please provide it. I've never read that. I'd like to if it's out there.
Blessing.
There is one big problem when you look for the historical Buddha: he wasn’t there. Literally, there is no evidence of the Buddha being spoken of or depicted anywhere near that time. Neither the Buddha nor Buddhism appears in the art, archeology, or written record of ancient India until the first century A.D. The skeptical mind is left wondering, why was there no Buddha until then? Why did Buddhism make absolutely no appearance for over 600 years after he was supposedly born? And why do so many people today talk about him as if he factually existed that early?