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.
Skeptic with a question about a question.
I admit right here that I’m an open minded but skeptical person in all things concerning philosophy or religion. I’ve been reading through introductory information on Buddhism and came across the following question in a document titled, “Good Question Good Answer” by S Dhammika.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
“Question: Wasn’t it irresponsible for the Buddha to walk out on his wife and child?
Answer: It couldn’t have been an easy thing for the Buddha to leave his family. He must have worried and hesitated for a long time before he finally left. But he had a choice, dedication himself to his family or dedicating himself to the world. In the end, his great compassion made him give himself to the whole world and the whole world still benefits from his sacrifice. This was not irresponsible. It was perhaps the most significant sacrifice ever made.”
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
The beginning part of the answer seems to be pure speculation as no references of proof are provided to support this altruist claim. It was stated that Siddhattha Gotama left his family when he was 29. It wasn’t until six years later that he claims himself ”awakened”. He may well have dedicated himself to the world after that but when he left his family, it was seemingly for a purely selfish desire to study religion and philosophy. Certainly this was not a premeditated sacrifice as he could not have possibly known where is studies might lead. Considering this, his actions at the time he left his family were clearly irresponsible.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
This kind of published answer to a perfectly valid question is similar to those apologists use to justify inconsistencies in Biblical texts. If I continue to study Buddhist documents will I find more apologist type explanations like this one?
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
There is so much information on this site and I’ve searched through a lot of it so if this question has been discussed before could someone please provide a link. Sorry for the long post. Thanks all.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o><o></o>
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
“Question: Wasn’t it irresponsible for the Buddha to walk out on his wife and child?
Answer: It couldn’t have been an easy thing for the Buddha to leave his family. He must have worried and hesitated for a long time before he finally left. But he had a choice, dedication himself to his family or dedicating himself to the world. In the end, his great compassion made him give himself to the whole world and the whole world still benefits from his sacrifice. This was not irresponsible. It was perhaps the most significant sacrifice ever made.”
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
The beginning part of the answer seems to be pure speculation as no references of proof are provided to support this altruist claim. It was stated that Siddhattha Gotama left his family when he was 29. It wasn’t until six years later that he claims himself ”awakened”. He may well have dedicated himself to the world after that but when he left his family, it was seemingly for a purely selfish desire to study religion and philosophy. Certainly this was not a premeditated sacrifice as he could not have possibly known where is studies might lead. Considering this, his actions at the time he left his family were clearly irresponsible.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
This kind of published answer to a perfectly valid question is similar to those apologists use to justify inconsistencies in Biblical texts. If I continue to study Buddhist documents will I find more apologist type explanations like this one?
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
There is so much information on this site and I’ve searched through a lot of it so if this question has been discussed before could someone please provide a link. Sorry for the long post. Thanks all.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o><o></o>
0
Comments
In my mind, the documents to study are the Pali Canon; they are, perhaps, the closest to what the oral tradition transmitted from the time of the Buddha. If you are interested in suffering, in understanding how your mind works, delusion, etc, then follow his instructions and experience for yourself.
Written words can't tell you about "you". Only your exploration can do that. This idea resonated with me, and eventually brought me to this path.
Good luck with whatever your endeavors may be!
so although they might well have felt somewhat aggrieved at the time,(and understandably so) it would appear that they were then moved and convinced by his reasoning and argument, to see that maybe, although it had initially been hurtful, he had a point.
You may (or may not) be surprised to hear that this is a relatively frequent point of discussion amongst Buddhists as well, so we don't really count ourselves as apologists. But we all have the ability to speculate and come to our own conclusions, which is what the person answering the question, replied with. ultimately, it was his understanding and opinion of the event, not a hard-and-fast, widely-accepted reasoning.
This seems to be a well-balanced account, with pertinent argument.
See what you think....
Is this irresponsible behavior? or Considerate?
Oh, by the way, it was common practice in his culture and time to leave wordly life as a ksatriya and become a shaman after fulfilling one's filial duties, which he did. This choice was open to all 'made' ksatriya.
Personally, I find most of the stories of Siddhartha irrelevant. If the teachings we attribute to him are true and work for us, then that's all that matters.
The closest thing we have to "historical documentation" of his life is the Pali Canon, which is comprised of suttas which were recorded quite a long time after his death. If this is our reference and we take it all literally, then to answer your question:
Why do you say irresponsible? The marriage was arranged. It was essentially a duty to provide an heir in that time and place. The Buddha left his wife and child in wealth and luxury, very well taken care of. Further, there seemed to be no animosity as both his wife and son went on to ordain and follow his teachings. In fact, it seems it was his parents who were upset over his decision (his parents whom had tried to shelter him from the reality of life, aging, sickness, and death, and provide him with all the material things you could imagine), as opposed to his wife.
The Buddha did indeed grow disenchanted with the sensual world of conditioned happiness. This is why he left. There's no need to romanticize things and tell ourselves he went out to save the world, to call what he did a "sacrifice." His motivation was not bad, or selfish though. We all seek happiness and peace for ourselves and ultimately only we can find them. He did, however, dedicate his life to teaching the dhamma to others upon discovering it. He taught a path to unconditioned compassion, loving-kindness, and peace and happiness for all people... and to me that's what matters.
Of course, who's to say any of these stories are true?
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
Thanks again and I’m hopeful others will respond to my original post.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->
Was it selfish that Ghandi stood up for what he believed in and went to jail (he had kids and a wife)?
Is it selfish for someone to go to war to protect their family?
I don't see any differences with Sidharta's choice.
Yes, but don't let it put you off!
You will find this type of thing in all major philosophies / religions.
Remember everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, you read is someone else's point of view. No matter how hard they try to write the truth, it's always their version of the truth. Read as much as you can, learn from people who have been studying for a while, then make your own mind up.
If leaving home had left his family financially destitute, then it would be fair to say that the Buddha caused harm. But we know that wasn't the case.
If leaving home had caused his wife deep suffering, then then it would be fair to say that the Buddha caused suffering. But we have no evidence that that happened, and no reason to assume that it did. It was an arranged marriage. Arranged marriages _may_ result in the spouses falling in love, but just as often they result in spouses who are friendly, have sex occasionally, but feel no romantic bond. For all we know, Yasodhara may have been relieved to be finally free of the Buddha's constant whining about the unsatisfactoriness of life.
If leaving home caused his son suffering, or had a bad effect on his son's development, then it would be fair to say that the Buddha cause harm or suffering. But again, we have no evidence that that happened. We know very little about Sakya society and Sakya child rearing practices. We don't know how child care duties were divided. We don't know how attached young sons were to their fathers. We do know that in many societies, sons leave home at a early age, either to be fostered by other adults, or to live in groups of boys of the same age. It's possible that Sakya fathers and sons were very close, and it's also possible that they had very little contact. Most societies lie somewhere in between those two extremes.
What we do know is that both Yasodhara and the adult Rahula became disciples of the Buddha. The overall lack of knowledge about the Buddha personally and Sakya society doesn't support projecting our own ideal child rearing practices onto another society and condemning people who don't live up to our ideals. Since we largely don't live up to our ideals, this would also be hypocritical.
I agree with this. The argument that the Buddha's leaving home is the ultimate sacrifice strikes me as less than profound, to put it diplomatically.
I agree that at this late date it is all speculation as to the extent that pain and suffering, if any, may have been caused when Siddhartha Gautama abandoned his family. It may well have been a happy event for all! But then again not all pain and suffering are obvious and easily rationalized away even when we can renormalize events.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
But I refer back to my original post with the italicized quote. The referenced question was focused on an “irresponsible” action. The author of the document thought this issue was important enough to make an attempt to answer it. The answer was reminiscent of the best that Madison Avenue spinmeisters can offer. There was no attempt to address any issue of pain and suffering as a relative moral or cultural issue or even to deny that pain and suffering resulted as some suggest. Thanks to you and others I’m beginning, just a little, to understand this issue from a Buddhist perspective. Obviously I have more to read.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
Honestly, I almost have more of an issue with the idea that he named his son Rahula than him leaving to go achieve enlightenment. I'm honestly not so sure that happened though. In eastern oral tradition, a lot of times they will name individuals what they represent spiritually. I have no idea whether the Buddha's birth name was actually Siddartha either, although that wasn't an uncommon name from what I understand.
His fantasies don't support your speculations.
Yes. Yes you will. In fact, that's why we all follow Buddhism. We like lots and lots of apologist type explanations in our religious/philosophical/spiritual documents. Buddhists love things that remind them of Christian apologists.
Seriously though, I very rarely respond to posts with sarcasm but your post, and specifically the way you framed your question, just begged for it. I mean honestly, BellsFree, what kind of response were you expecting from such an aggressively toned and worded post?
And your question....Was that really a sincere question? Because to me it sounded something like this: "Hi. I just finished reading something on the internet about your chosen spiritual path that I found patently ridiculous and somewhat offensive. If I keep researching this path will I find more stupid, offensive things like this?"
I don't know. Maybe that's how you really communicate. Maybe you were being sincere and your question was completely innocent and guileless. If that's the case then I apologize for having a giggle. But it seems to me like you just came here to argue. I hope not. Anyway, welcome to the site and I hope you find it as friendly and useful as I have.
And a note to all of you who answered the OP in such good faith: I really love you guys. You're the best bunch of people I think I've ever come across. I feel honored to walk this path with you.
Gasp! :eek:
Was I too harsh?
I've been very...uh...I guess bitchy would be the word....lately.
And I've been trying to work on this ego issue I have about people pleasing and I could be going to opposite extreme.
I'm very sorry if I crossed the line and if what I said was unwarranted.
and
others have to pay their debt to us
that is why we meet each other
once we pay our debt we go our own way
however we can meet them again with compassion without attachment
I always took the story of the Buddha as a metaphor and to the best of my knowledge, there is no proof the Buddha even existed.
Thanks!
P.S. "Epic Fail'. That's a great expression. I'm going to use it, K? I'll give you credit.