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 as absentee father
I got into a discussion with my husband this evening about the Buddha. He was utterly shocked to find out that Siddhartha left his wife and son in order to go forth into the world and said it was the one thing he'd found that he didn't like about Buddhism.
It's a salient point, for sure. Siddhartha had made a commitment to his wife and was directly responsible for his son, and viewed from a certain standpoint, it was irresponsible of him to leave them. Whilst he didn't exactly leave them to starve in the gutter, there was no guarantee that they would be taken care of in his absence as the scriptures don't go into detail about how he made provision for them. As far as I can ascertain, his wife was pretty much dependent on the good will of Siddhartha's father after he left. Having said that though, nobody seemed particularly put out by this, least of all the wife and son, who I understand actually became followers of his some years later. I don't know very much about cultural norms in that part of the world at that time but perhaps it was a usual occurrence back then.
Also, it could possibly be argued that it wasn't as if he was going off to please himself - he was actually motivated by humanity's suffering and if he did manage to figure it out, his family would benefit too. I also find it interesting after questioning my other half that, had the Buddha gone off to fight in a war, he would have viewed him as a hero and not found his absence particularly remarkable or objectionable.
Have any of you ever pondered this particular aspect of the Buddha's life and if so, what's your thinking on it?
It's a salient point, for sure. Siddhartha had made a commitment to his wife and was directly responsible for his son, and viewed from a certain standpoint, it was irresponsible of him to leave them. Whilst he didn't exactly leave them to starve in the gutter, there was no guarantee that they would be taken care of in his absence as the scriptures don't go into detail about how he made provision for them. As far as I can ascertain, his wife was pretty much dependent on the good will of Siddhartha's father after he left. Having said that though, nobody seemed particularly put out by this, least of all the wife and son, who I understand actually became followers of his some years later. I don't know very much about cultural norms in that part of the world at that time but perhaps it was a usual occurrence back then.
Also, it could possibly be argued that it wasn't as if he was going off to please himself - he was actually motivated by humanity's suffering and if he did manage to figure it out, his family would benefit too. I also find it interesting after questioning my other half that, had the Buddha gone off to fight in a war, he would have viewed him as a hero and not found his absence particularly remarkable or objectionable.
Have any of you ever pondered this particular aspect of the Buddha's life and if so, what's your thinking on it?
0
Comments
There are a couple things to bear in mind: Marriages in a lot of cultures used to be affairs arranged entirely by the parents, sometimes even when their children were young (even Gandhi's marriage was arranged, before puberty IIRC). Marriage was originally a kind of political institution to form alliances between different tribes, families and so on (and there are still many places today where this practice is carried out).
"Love" in the modern romantic sense, didn't exist back then, and marriage in the modern sense did not exist either. Or if you did truly love someone, it was still not your choice to make. If you were lucky, you grew to love the person you were forced to marry. And if you didn't, too bad.
I'm not saying the Buddha did not have feelings of love Yashodara or his infant son, but we often confuse the word "marriage" used back then for "marriage" used today, and all that it implies.
I agree - if he'd left them to go chop heads off and conquer new lands, he'd have been a big shot hero. And don't forget, his wife and his son later became his pupils. He didn't abandon them forever.
It's the difference between a husband leaving to shack up with another woman, and a man who left to fight a war. Leaving the family is tragic but duty calls. Guatama left a life of luxury including what was probably concubines to go along with the royal household to live the life of a beggar. I'm sure his father and wife and everyone else in the palace were as mystified as us in why he did such an insane thing.
Guatama was driven to discovering why people where unhappy. Not just why he was unhappy, but everyone. It was that obsession with comprehending the mystery of Dukkha that allowed him to finally realize his awakening.
Love your new avatar, vix!
Saying he was an "absentee father" makes it sound like he left them homeless and penniless to starve, for no good reason. Which was hardly the case.
We do need to take in account different cultures, too. In our culture, we consider the nuclear family (mum, dad, 2.4 kids) to be essential, but in many other cultures families are more extended and complex, with children often 'farmed out' to other relatives, and long-term servants effectively becoming part of the family. Traditionally, even in the West, we talked of "households" rather than "families", and that could include dogs and horses, as well as servants, other people's children, long-term guests etc. It was much more fluid than the rigid structure we in the West consider "normal". I sometimes think our way of life must sound rather lonely to someone from a traditional culture.