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.
Just to put that in context ,The Buddha to be probably spoke a language called Magadhi. ( see Gombrich ) As far as we know it had no written form, and has not existed for more than a thousand years as a living language. His teachings were eventually written down some 400 years after his death, in various dialects. The only record that survives is in Pali, so from the start the first written record was a translation. Those teachings were spoken almost 1000 years before Stonehenge was built. We know very little about his times. Almost any idea we have about the social context of the Buddhas teachings are likely to be projection.
A wife and child are fetters and impediments to living the holy life :-P .. When Rahula was born the Buddha said a fetter has been out upon me..hence the name Rahula.
That's one account, which is the one presented in the Nidanakatha, the introductory chapter of the commentary to the Jataka. Another account, however, is that he was born during the time of an eclipse, then thought to be caused by the sun and moon being swallowed by an asura named Rahu (rahu = eclipse), which I personally find equally as plausible (references to Rahu in the Pali Canon can be found at SN 2.9 and SN 2.10). This particular version of the story is found in the Sanghabhedavastu of the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya.
Nidanakatha is an awesome based on the contents itself. It would be an extremely meritocratic virtue deed to print and circulate in hardcopy and distribute to most of the monasteries and libraries.
As for Rahula links, it suggesting the similarity of cultural mindset not only in ancient india, but also in modern era in 21st century. I would think the only no much different is the organ of living beings other than its sizes and operational capability
Whoops.Yes you are correct . Stonehenge 1600 years BC. The Buddha 500 years BC. But the socio-linguistic points stand. And we actually know from the archeological record more about the builders of Stonehenge than we know about The Sakya clan from which the Buddha arose.
Just to put that in context ,The Buddha to be probably spoke a language called Magadhi. ( see Gombrich ) As far as we know it had no written form, and has not existed for more than a thousand years as a living language. His teachings were eventually written down some 400 years after his death, in various dialects. The only record that survives is in Pali, so from the start the first written record was a translation.
I more or less agree with the caveat that the Pali Canon is the most complete collection of early teachings extant, but there are fragments of early teachings that also survive in other Prakrit languages such as Gandhari, as well as a large number of translations of early teachings comparable to the suttas of the Pali canon preserved in Chinese (with fragments also preserved in Tibetan and Sanskrit).
Almost any idea we have about the social context of the Buddhas teachings are likely to be projection.
I'd say that at least some idea of the social context of the Buddha's time can be gleaned from various oral and textual sources, as well as archaeological evidence; but I agree that our knowledge is woefully incomplete in that regard. And much of what we do know is contradictory and possibly tainted by later commentators imposing their own views and agendas into the texts and histories..
Considering he was a prince, royalty probably didn't raise their children directly anyway. Siddhartha may not have even been raised by his own parents, but rather by caretakers. Likely, when he left his family, his children were being raised by a caretaker as well.
Considering he was a prince, royalty probably didn't raise their children directly anyway. Siddhartha may not have even been raised by his own parents, but rather by caretakers. Likely, when he left his family, his children were being raised by a caretaker as well.
Exceedingly wealthy people still do this.
We can justify all we want! Its still WRONG in my opinion!
1) There is an alternate theory which says at the time of Buddha, there was a dispute between Siddhartha's kingdom and it's neighbors over distribution of river water and Siddhartha chose to put himself in exile rather go on a war. The mythical overlay is bound to be immense after 2500 years, so we would never know.
2) At those time, it was not very uncommon in Hinduism to leave a family and become ascetic at any point of life, Hindu mythology and texts like Mahabharata are full of such references.
3) As already mention by many, his family was covered for.
4) If we believe in Bodhisatta, this was bound to happen that buddha would gain complete enlightenment in the life of Siddhartha and Siddhartha's parents, wife, son etc.are some who had the privilege only after many good deeds of previous life. So this gives to total opposite view of Siddhartha's giving up family life. (And well compared one Bodhisatta, where he gives his children for slavery this is nothing.. )
(On off topic note, there are Ajantha caves in India which depict events in life of Buddha in scriptures, one scripture always overwhelms me is the one where after attaining the Budhhahood on request of his father goes back to his city and goes to his home for alms. He is standing in the door for alms and his wife with his son is there to provide alms. The buddha is shown twice as taller of his wife to depict his status of Budhhahood, the buddha has the same expression on his face as all the other buddha statues even after meeting his family after so many years. Also, the fact that time of Buddha's death his most of his immediate family including his son Rahula was already dead, still no grief. Greatness ... :bowdown: )
See, one problem here is that we have two conflicting views of who or rather what Siddhartha and the Buddha was. One view treats Siddhartha and his journey to awakening as some grand predestined sacred culmination of celestial events where the only important player in the drama is the Buddha. When looked at it this way, none of the other people in the story are important at all except in relation to how they advance the story of Buddha. We have Buddha's mother, important only because her role is to provide the portal for Siddhartha to be reincarnated. We have Buddha's father, his role to provide Siddhartha everything he could ever want in life as a temptation. We have Siddhartha's wife and baby son, who had important roles in the drama because without them, it could not be said that Siddhartha left everything a man could desire to begin his quest. One of the great desires for a man is to have a son to carry on his name. Why did he leave his wife and son? Because the story demands that Siddhartha have everything a man could possibly desire and it still wasn't enough. The great drama being played out demands this happen.
Looking at Siddhartha's story this way, you might as well ask why did God have to basically rape the virgin Mary just before her marriage to Joseph. Because the story demands it. Jesus had to have a divine father and a mortal mother. Good girls won't agree to even divine sex without being married first, and God doesn't ask permission.
The other way to look at Siddhartha's life is to see him as a product of his culture and upbringing and nature. He left them, his father, and his palace full of servants because he made the decision to put his own plans and desires above even his wife and child. Gee, you think any husbands out there today might fit that description? Certainly he wasn't cruel. He didn't abandon them to poverty or food stamps or whatever charity existed then. I think here what bothers people about the story is the simplified notion of good and bad karma. If abandoning your family is bad, that means bad karma, and supposedly nothing good can come from bad karma. Yet Siddhartha would not have become Buddha without leaving. I'd say the problem here is an oversimplified view of karma, but I leave that your own comprehension.
If your diagnosis is correct , that the problem is an over simplified view of karma/kamma then I would agree. Its worth remembering that what determines kamma vipaka is intention. Did the Prince intend pain ? Or did he intend an end to pain ?
If your diagnosis is correct , that the problem is an over simplified view of karma/kamma then I would agree. Its worth remembering that what determines kamma vipaka is intention. Did the Prince intend pain ? Or did he intend an end to pain ?
I think you have oversimplified the concept of intention.
It is beyond just this is what I want to happen, but also addresses and what would be the foreseeable consequences of my action.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
The act of leaving his wife and child does admittedly seem rather harsh and selfish to many, and I can certainly understand why. My own father left just before I was born, and I sometimes have trouble with this part of the story. It seems kind of like a dickish thing to do.
That said, my father's motives probably weren't as noble as the Buddha's, who's said to have set out with compassion in his heart for all affected by ageing, illness, and death, and who eventually returned to share what he'd discovered with his family and anyone else who'd listen, his son eventually ordaining himself (and his wife, too, if you believe the later literature). In addition, they weren't left helpless, but under the care and protection of his wealthy father (and it should also be noted that the story of him 'sneaking off' in the middle of the night while his wife and child slept isn't mentioned anywhere in the Pali Canon itself, but comes from later, post-canonical sources).
So while I'm somewhat critical of the act in and of itself, and can understand why others find it rather unbecoming of someone supposedly so worthy of respect, I think the Buddha deserves some slack given his noble motives and the fact that we don't have any idea how it actually went down.
I can see your point here but we also have to remember that Sidhartha was not awake yet when he left...
When Buddha woke in him, he could have set off in any direction but he went back first. Back to the ones Sidhartha practiced with and then back to his family.
The stories I've heard have them joining the Sangha.
He shunned his earthly responsibility until he saw it was even greater than he thought.
Yes! And the following passage is where it goes beyond mere intent:
""While you are doing a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not... you may continue with it."
I can see your point here but we also have to remember that Sidhartha was not awake yet when he left...
When Buddha woke in him, he could have set off in any direction but he went back first. Back to the ones Sidhartha practiced with and then back to his family.
The stories I've heard have them joining the Sangha.
He shunned his earthly responsibility until he saw it was even greater than he thought.
That's a very good point.
But I think we have to differentiate between judging someone's actions and judging the person.
As a principal I had to evaluate teachers. My observation reports were full of critiques, but judging those behaviors and strategies of those teachers were not -- at least usually -- judging their characters.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
The best characters are the ones we can see change.
For what it's worth, I tend to take the position that the Buddha wasn't perfect; that he was a human being just like the rest of us, and prone to doing some rather 'unenlightened' things (at least before his enlightenment, at any rate). In addition, if we take what certain sources tell us about the Buddha's life and ancient Indian tradition at that time, which is that his father arranged his marriage when he was sixteen, then the Buddha isn't entirely to blame for getting married and starting a family. It was something more or less imposed on him by his father and tradition.
So taking that into account, and imaging him eventually coming into contact with the samana tradition of wander ascetics and finding himself deeply called to follow that way of life, I have some sympathy for him and his predicament. That doesn't mean I necessary praise his decision to leave his wife and son to become a wandering ascetic; but for all I know, he discussed it with his wife and she supported his decision. (In my own case, my longtime girlfriend of nine years has said that she'd support my decision to ordain if I ever chose to follow that path). Just one perspective to consider.
Sorry I was unaware that quoting the words of the Buddha on a Buddhist forum was seen as not thinking for oneself. Now I know.
If we start from the doctrine that the Buddha was like Mary Poppins . . . [Mary Poppins measures herself with her tape measure and reads what it says] Mary Poppins: As I expected. "Mary Poppins, practically perfect in every way." then we end up justifying his near perfect intentions.
Real thinking?
Becoming aware of out intention IS taking full responsibility for our actions
What was the real intention of someone escaping a confined expectation? Quite selfish or altruistic? The Buddha, just like us was a real person and we measure up to his potential for delusion and for the end of delusion. Why are we really studying Buddhism? To improve our well being or save the world? Or are our intentions transient and impermanent?
Considering he was a prince, royalty probably didn't raise their children directly anyway. Siddhartha may not have even been raised by his own parents, but rather by caretakers. Likely, when he left his family, his children were being raised by a caretaker as well.
Exceedingly wealthy people still do this.
We can justify all we want! Its still WRONG in my opinion!
"Wrong" according to the social expectations of today.
Considering he was a prince, royalty probably didn't raise their children directly anyway. Siddhartha may not have even been raised by his own parents, but rather by caretakers. Likely, when he left his family, his children were being raised by a caretaker as well.
Exceedingly wealthy people still do this.
We can justify all we want! Its still WRONG in my opinion!
zenmyste, you of course, are welcome here so don't get the wrong idea from me asking this, but are you even interested in Buddhism? It doesn't seem so from your posts here.
Considering he was a prince, royalty probably didn't raise their children directly anyway. Siddhartha may not have even been raised by his own parents, but rather by caretakers. Likely, when he left his family, his children were being raised by a caretaker as well.
Exceedingly wealthy people still do this.
We can justify all we want! Its still WRONG in my opinion!
zenmyste, you of course, are welcome here so don't get the wrong idea from me asking this, but are you even interested in Buddhism? It doesn't seem so from your posts here.
lol .. Im sorry it comes across that way. Its because im not good at expressing whats in my mind, im a terrible writer!
Of course i like buddhism very much, i just dont rely on it anymore!
I have my 'notebooks' full of buddhist inspirations and at one time i was a hardcore practising buddhist!
But these days i have kind found my 'own' way and 'half parted' from buddhism!
There are still many things i agree with but there are also Many things i dont agree with!
Considering he was a prince, royalty probably didn't raise their children directly anyway. Siddhartha may not have even been raised by his own parents, but rather by caretakers. Likely, when he left his family, his children were being raised by a caretaker as well.
Exceedingly wealthy people still do this.
We can justify all we want! Its still WRONG in my opinion!
zenmyste, you of course, are welcome here so don't get the wrong idea from me asking this, but are you even interested in Buddhism? It doesn't seem so from your posts here.
lol .. Im sorry it comes across that way. Its because im not good at expressing whats in my mind, im a terrible writer!
Of course i like buddhism very much, i just dont rely on it anymore!
I have my 'notebooks' full of buddhist inspirations and at one time i was a hardcore practising buddhist!
But these days i have kind found my 'own' way and 'half parted' from buddhism!
There are still many things i agree with but there are also Many things i dont agree with!
That's cool, I would be interested to hear in what you don't agree with.
Comments
As far as we know it had no written form, and has not existed for more than a thousand years as a living language.
His teachings were eventually written down some 400 years after his death, in various dialects.
The only record that survives is in Pali, so from the start the first written record was a translation.
Those teachings were spoken almost 1000 years before Stonehenge was built.
We know very little about his times.
Almost any idea we have about the social context of the Buddhas teachings are likely to be projection.
As for Rahula links, it suggesting the similarity of cultural mindset not only in ancient india, but also in modern era in 21st century. I would think the only no much different is the organ of living beings other than its sizes and operational capability
And we actually know from the archeological record more about the builders of Stonehenge than we know about The Sakya clan from which the Buddha arose.
Exceedingly wealthy people still do this.
1) There is an alternate theory which says at the time of Buddha, there was a dispute between Siddhartha's kingdom and it's neighbors over distribution of river water and Siddhartha chose to put himself in exile rather go on a war.
The mythical overlay is bound to be immense after 2500 years, so we would never know.
2) At those time, it was not very uncommon in Hinduism to leave a family and become ascetic at any point of life, Hindu mythology and texts like Mahabharata are full of such references.
3) As already mention by many, his family was covered for.
4) If we believe in Bodhisatta, this was bound to happen that buddha would gain complete enlightenment in the life of Siddhartha and Siddhartha's parents, wife, son etc.are some who had the privilege only after many good deeds of previous life.
So this gives to total opposite view of Siddhartha's giving up family life.
(And well compared one Bodhisatta, where he gives his children for slavery this is nothing..
(On off topic note, there are Ajantha caves in India which depict events in life of Buddha in scriptures, one scripture always overwhelms me is the one where after attaining the Budhhahood on request of his father goes back to his city and goes to his home for alms. He is standing in the door for alms and his wife with his son is there to provide alms. The buddha is shown twice as taller of his wife to depict his status of Budhhahood, the buddha has the same expression on his face as all the other buddha statues even after meeting his family after so many years.
Also, the fact that time of Buddha's death his most of his immediate family including his son Rahula was already dead, still no grief. Greatness ... :bowdown: )
Looking at Siddhartha's story this way, you might as well ask why did God have to basically rape the virgin Mary just before her marriage to Joseph. Because the story demands it. Jesus had to have a divine father and a mortal mother. Good girls won't agree to even divine sex without being married first, and God doesn't ask permission.
The other way to look at Siddhartha's life is to see him as a product of his culture and upbringing and nature. He left them, his father, and his palace full of servants because he made the decision to put his own plans and desires above even his wife and child. Gee, you think any husbands out there today might fit that description? Certainly he wasn't cruel. He didn't abandon them to poverty or food stamps or whatever charity existed then. I think here what bothers people about the story is the simplified notion of good and bad karma. If abandoning your family is bad, that means bad karma, and supposedly nothing good can come from bad karma. Yet Siddhartha would not have become Buddha without leaving. I'd say the problem here is an oversimplified view of karma, but I leave that your own comprehension.
Its worth remembering that what determines kamma vipaka is intention.
Did the Prince intend pain ? Or did he intend an end to pain ?
It is beyond just this is what I want to happen, but also addresses and what would be the foreseeable consequences of my action.
A.N. 6.63.
Becoming aware of out intention IS taking full responsibility for our actions.
When Buddha woke in him, he could have set off in any direction but he went back first. Back to the ones Sidhartha practiced with and then back to his family.
The stories I've heard have them joining the Sangha.
He shunned his earthly responsibility until he saw it was even greater than he thought.
""While you are doing a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not... you may continue with it."
But I think we have to differentiate between judging someone's actions and judging the person.
As a principal I had to evaluate teachers. My observation reports were full of critiques, but judging those behaviors and strategies of those teachers were not -- at least usually -- judging their characters.
If we start from the doctrine that the Buddha was like Mary Poppins . . .
[Mary Poppins measures herself with her tape measure and reads what it says] Mary Poppins: As I expected. "Mary Poppins, practically perfect in every way."
then we end up justifying his near perfect intentions.
Real thinking? What was the real intention of someone escaping a confined expectation? Quite selfish or altruistic? The Buddha, just like us was a real person and we measure up to his potential for delusion and for the end of delusion. Why are we really studying Buddhism? To improve our well being or save the world? Or are our intentions transient and impermanent?
zenmyste, you of course, are welcome here so don't get the wrong idea from me asking this, but are you even interested in Buddhism? It doesn't seem so from your posts here.
Of course i like buddhism very much, i just dont rely on it anymore!
I have my 'notebooks' full of buddhist inspirations and at one time i was a hardcore practising buddhist!
But these days i have kind found my 'own' way and 'half parted' from buddhism!
There are still many things i agree with but there are also Many things i dont agree with!