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.
If some one in our modern day became a Buddha, would they too leave their child and not raise him?
zenmyste
Veteran
What im asking is this;
As we know, prince siddartha left his kid, to 'seek' enlightenment.
He promised his wife and father that when he found the way he would return.
When he did find the way and returned, he didnt stay for good and continue to raise his child. He came back to 'preach' the dharma and left said he had to leave and teach to save all beings from sufferings etc etc..
Now whether that specifc story is true or not, i dont particulary like it.. (first leaving is wife and new born, then not raising him once he returned) Some stories say that once he became buddha he was no longer the same man. he was no longer siddartha, the husband and father. (i dont buy it, of course you are still a father)
Now my question is this;
For those who think the story is true and also believe that what the buddha did was OK, do you think that if a father became fully awakened right now, he would leave his family and go teaching 'the way' to end suffering?
(I understand the reason why Buddha left and then taught; ''To find a cure and to save all beings from suffering''
But at the same time, he had a family to support and also, lets 'face it' he hasnt exactly ''saved'' ALL BEINGS..
So another question could be; ''should Buddha have spent quallity time with his son, playing and raising him, instead of spending all his time teaching 'his way' to end suffering. (I believe his son Rahula, did end up becoming a Monk, but for all we know that could have just been to spend some time with his long lost daddy..
Forgive me friends, its just always been something i didnt 'quite like' about the Buddhism.
Thoughts if you may please?
As we know, prince siddartha left his kid, to 'seek' enlightenment.
He promised his wife and father that when he found the way he would return.
When he did find the way and returned, he didnt stay for good and continue to raise his child. He came back to 'preach' the dharma and left said he had to leave and teach to save all beings from sufferings etc etc..
Now whether that specifc story is true or not, i dont particulary like it.. (first leaving is wife and new born, then not raising him once he returned) Some stories say that once he became buddha he was no longer the same man. he was no longer siddartha, the husband and father. (i dont buy it, of course you are still a father)
Now my question is this;
For those who think the story is true and also believe that what the buddha did was OK, do you think that if a father became fully awakened right now, he would leave his family and go teaching 'the way' to end suffering?
(I understand the reason why Buddha left and then taught; ''To find a cure and to save all beings from suffering''
But at the same time, he had a family to support and also, lets 'face it' he hasnt exactly ''saved'' ALL BEINGS..
So another question could be; ''should Buddha have spent quallity time with his son, playing and raising him, instead of spending all his time teaching 'his way' to end suffering. (I believe his son Rahula, did end up becoming a Monk, but for all we know that could have just been to spend some time with his long lost daddy..
Forgive me friends, its just always been something i didnt 'quite like' about the Buddhism.
Thoughts if you may please?
0
Comments
Buddha had his own karma.
Lets not forget he was only human, man.
He understood something, that is all. and he tried to share his wisdom, instead of raising his family.
Buddha only taught how and why we mentally suffer. We cause our own suffering. (we should get over it) if we dont like it, then stop craving/desiring. Simple as...
Its not a some disease which some unluckily get like cancer and could die at any moment.
We mentally suffer because we are want want want... and want more.. Too bad.
In this day and age especially, all im saying is surely whether a buddha or not, one should devote to looking after his family.
Whether he knows how to stop 'mental suffering or not'
When he left his family, he was just aspiring to deal with his koan and a long way from "perfect".
The part of the story is really saying how much he sacrificed for this quest, not whether it was right or wrong. Most folks that have entered monastic or a renunciates life have relatives & friends that naturally question what feels like a rejection of normal human values.
He did not have a family to support! He was leaving the child in a royal household full of attendants, housekeepers, relatives, his wife and with all his material needs taken care of.
The story says that Gautama's renunciation of worldly ties was also undertaken for the childs spiritual health.
Trying to find a father today in Gautama's shoes would take some imaginative doing.
Anyway, as to the original question, I don't like the idea either, but it is true that at that time and in that situation, marriage and fatherhood were completely different concepts and different expectations existed.
But in all seriousness you're wrong
Maybe the point is that he would not have left them in that condition?
Also since when ancients Kings or monarchy raise his children by their own?
To the second part, once again, no. But, I think the part that the OP is questioning is was the action that Gotama initially took being a good father. To me, despite the culture, the answer is no. But, that's what actually (well we think actually) happened. So be it.
I have less knowledge of the historical texts than I'm sure many do here, and I thank those who gave me information above. Glad to hear the tradition has been less sexist than I had assumed.
Either way the question is flawed because Siddhartha wasn't awake before he left. Id say he more than made up for leaving his child with his aunt in the lap of luxury by awakening him later on.
He didn't wake up and leave his family because he left in a state of confusion. He woke up and then offered them (and us) awakening.
if a man leaves his wife and child and goes to fight a war in iraq.
he dies, is he irresponsible?
no, he wanted to 'defend' his country.
he is a 'hero'.
some will say, he is a fool, an irresponsible father.
what do you think?
We are asking whether a wealthy, educated, privileged man from a time nearly 3000 years in the past, did the right thing by following actions which ultimately gave us a wonderful calling we all respond to with enthusiasm and dedication?
Sometimes, the end justifies the means.
The fact that he became enlightened, would - by standards we all agree with - mean that he had "used up and eradicated" all negative consequences of his kammic actions.
you can't be enlightened with bad kammic baggage, can you?
So presumably, his action of leaving his wife and child, was not sufficiently bad kamma for him to not achieve enlightenment. Maybe he worked that 'bad kammic consequence' off during the 6 years he spent as a travelling mendicant....
He certainly put himself through the mill... divesting himself of every vestige of privilege or luxury, in one fell swoop... ridding himself of clothing, shelter, food, and basic home comforts (basic home comforts we all currently enjoy in one way or another, don't we...?) cutting his hair, relying on the charity and kindness of complete strangers, walking everywhere.... (we should try all of the above for a month and see how we get on with that...)
so i figure, yeah, whatever the consequences of following the actions he did, he pretty much worked off any negative vippaka he may have accumulated.
And yes, both male and female members of his family not only followed him as disciples, but his son ordained, and his family knew enlightenment.
I'm sorry.....
Why do we still have a problem with this...?
Is anyone here able to follow suit, and do precisely what he did, to test the theory?
Anyone here willing to follow in his precise footsteps and answer the question from a factual and experiential point of view?
@zenmyste, willing to put it to the test and come back to us with an answer to your question?
Because it is often said - if you're going to question someone's actions and decisions, at least walk a mile in their shoes first.....
No thanks, I've got responsibility.
But anyway, zen teacher 'Thich Nhat Hanh' tells the story alittle different to what I've always heard. He teaches something on the lines of; "the buddha and wife were into meditation anyway, before buddha left, and she always knew that he wanted to go on a search for self and freedom. So she was the one who said "GO"
HOWEVER, then she said but promise me one thing; that when you find what your looking for 'come back to me and be with me and your child'
This is the part I don't like; "the buddha didn't stay and look after his son, he decided to go and teach and his son could only become a follwer at a specific age..
To be honest, the buddha leaving doesn't bother me, because he and his wife could have had a genuine understanding.
(I know wifes who let their husbands go on weeks retreats)
So that could happen. (Mine doesn't lol)
But anyway, like I said, its the fact that enlightened or not, he had a child to love, care, and raise.
In fact, apparently in one story I've read; just after his enlightenment, he came accross a young boy and became friends with him. The boy used to bring him food and milk.
They spent a lot of times laughing, joking, and sharing stories..
The buddha watched him grow up!
That's when I think.; the buddha should be doing that with his own child!!!!
(But its just a story isn't)
The story of buddha and the story of jesus, are the 2 best stories ever told. Great wisdom in both.
The second has to be; 'harry potter followed by 'star wars'
X
Why do you have to be so disdainful?
there's really no need to be so insulting.
Way way before I got into buddhism, I was brought up in a catholic school, and I was taught all about jesus etc etc, and I always used to think, whether its true or not, its sure is a great story!
Then I came across buddhism. And I thought 'wow, what another great story of a man who managed to find freedom and share his wisdom etc etc..
I've always found some movies that have simular ideas; like GOODNESS vs EVIL.
(God v saturn)
(Buddha v the evil mara)
I've always loved the star wars good jedi v bad jedi and think its is actually very buddhist like and yoda is actually a zen master!!
I'm not being dis-respectful, I'm genuinly saying, whether true or not, there are some great stories out there!
1. Jesus's journey
2. Buddhas
3. Harry potter's
4. Luke's and his father anakin in star wars..
These are my favourites but I'm sure there's more.
Don't take things to heart and chill. Its not like I'm calling "your religion" please don't get all defensive because then you'll be making buddhism abit 'culty' and could scare people off!
(Don't forget, I like buddhism too so I'm not calling it)
I appreciate the clarification.
I just find it extraordinary that we as human beings seem to delight in putting Great People on a pedestal, then we take equal delight in finding ways to demolish it.
"What was he thinking when he left his wife and son?"
"Was he Chauvinist?"
Why did he 'say' this?"
"Why didn't he 'do' that?"
We have a tendency to do this with all manner of famous names - particularly after they die.
The media delights in ripping up people's memories, and tearing them to shreds by revealing aspects of what might have been a shady past.
Princess Diana died in 1997. The press still writes about her.... and not always flatteringly, either.
My opinion is that we should not focus on the unanswerable hypotheses of a specific matter.
What is the point of doing so?
Focus on what the fundamental focus should be.
And we all know what that is.
Yes, your point is one that seems to be overlooked when this topic comes up. Yes, a man left. No, a Buddha did not.
so I am not telling a bunch of parents to take off on their kids, however it is not the one size fits all family here. Lots of families with different situations are great! and some families with everythign that looks good are not great. Plus judging any family from the outside can be damaging.
Plus the deal of trying to make a judgement from a looong time ago so that we can either feel better about ourselves or see that the buddha was not so perfect when the teachings bug us doesn't really work. We have to examine our own intentions, understand the precepts for ourselves and act.
A side note to the OP, one shift that is very hard coming from western religions is to get away from black and white, right and wrong. It seems we should have a right and wrong but buddhism doesn't separate that in actions or emotions. So give that transitions a looong time to comprehend.
the way to Enlightenment has been found, but not by us.
The Buddha showed the way. My interest is in if anyone is willing to duplicate his actions, and do as he did?
He may have found enlightenment, but we haven't.....so actually, we're at an advantage. it should take us less time, theoretically.....;)
But that's the thing, he was brought up sheltered from reality - most people lose a little each day, get hurt a little bit at a time, and gradually accumulate fears, resentments, coping mechanisms, until the potential for trying anything different is buried under layers of survival skills.
The Buddha didn't. He thought the world was love and milk and honey, till one day, this innocent, this holy fool, was hit right between the eyes with the true horror of the world. Horrors we see every day but which we have learned to close our eyes to, bridges we don't think of crossing till we come to them, usually weary and unprepared.
So yes, the Buddha was irresponsible to leave his family. It took someone like that, a reckless fool who would not compromise, could not compromise with suffering, to uncover the path for us.
@zenmyste, if you don't "like" this part of the story, that's really your own problem. There's really nothing productive in speculating about whether or not this was a "good and responsible" choice made by Gautama. Idle chatter, really.
I'm not saying Buddha was the only true contemplative, or the only one who has ever reached the end of suffering. But his conditioning meant that he couldn't accept less; it also made him perhaps less responsible to his family than we, reading about him, are comfortable with.
He wasn't a Jesus in the orthodox Christian sense - he wasn't perfect from cradle to grave.
He left two wives to become a monk (most people want that, but can't have
He became a monk at the age of 19 and lived to the age of 120. He followed the Buddha path for 100 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsu_Yun