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.
Gautama Buddha: deadbeat dad?
SillyPutty
Veteran
I posted on another thread here recently which briefly touched upon the idea of leaving your family to go pursue the monastic life. A couple of weeks ago, someone told me that if I felt that becoming a nun was something I felt inclined to do, I should leave my family and friends behind, because that's what Gautama Buddha did. The phrase "deadbeat dad" came to mind when I thought of this, so I googled it along with Gautama Buddha's name. It seems I'm not the only one who made that tongue-in-cheek association.
So I was wondering, how many other people here think that it is okay to abandon your family and friends to go become a monk or a nun? Are you running away from responsibility? Or should we look at it from the perspective of, "all relationships eventually fade and people die, so why wait?"
It's funny, because when I told this person I could not leave my partner and pets to go become a nun, they said that's no excuse. When I said I still had monetary debt to pay off, they said that was a legitimate excuse. How is running away from debt seen more as a responsibility than running away from those who may depend on you and you love and care for?
So I was wondering, how many other people here think that it is okay to abandon your family and friends to go become a monk or a nun? Are you running away from responsibility? Or should we look at it from the perspective of, "all relationships eventually fade and people die, so why wait?"
It's funny, because when I told this person I could not leave my partner and pets to go become a nun, they said that's no excuse. When I said I still had monetary debt to pay off, they said that was a legitimate excuse. How is running away from debt seen more as a responsibility than running away from those who may depend on you and you love and care for?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
If it meant doing that to become Enlightened then Sidddartha had an obligation to do that.
The difficulty is that we don't live with hindsight so personal decisions are often difficult.
I think the Buddha calling his son "Fetter" was a bit tough on the young lad though.
But remember that Buddha's wife and kid (not that I am saying it was ok then, either) had a whole palace of attendant's and others to look after all their needs. We also don't know what the truth really is, but many stories about it I've read seem to indicate that the wife knew that Siddhartha would be leaving eventually.
I don't think just because a person has the opinion that it's ok to run away from your family but not your debt makes it true. If you went to a monastery and said you had no debt but had 4 kids and a wife and you'd be leaving your job, leaving them with not enough money and no health care and so on, that the abbott would say that was just fine. People sometimes just have screwed up interpretations about some things.
I think that for the most part, once you have made the decision to be a spouse and a parent, that your responsibility to see that through comes before your desires to be a monk. If you didn't discover the spiritual path until later, that doesn't make it ok to leave them. Sometimes you don't make the right choice. But then it means you have to make your choice right.
I think it's often a case of the grass is greener. People who see themselves as held down by kids and a spouse and a house and cars and bills and insurance see a lot of romantic notions in monasticism. But as the saying goes, if they'd water their own grass, it would be green, too.
There are certain situations in which something like this might work. But for general purposes for the average family person, no. Plus I think most people who left their families to be a monk/nun would suffer a lot of stress and guilt and in the end, make poor monks/nuns anyhow.
Okay, thank you again. I feel better now. :cool:
John, I think you make some questionable assumptions here.
1. Siddhartha didn't know he was going to become enlightened. He didn't even know there was such a thing as enlightenment. When a hippy-type today (for wont of a better phrase) walks away from family and friends and job "to find himself", he is usually looked on as being irresponsible (at best).
2. The fact that they were going to be well-taken care of, because the family was wealthy, doesn't mean he fulfilled his responsibility.
3. How does one open-ended "obligation" trump rather concrete obligations?
All that is not saying that we didn't all benefit from his action.
However, it also seems true to me that Siddartha had an even bigger obligation to become Enlightened as only through that experience could he help to liberate others from suffering.
If, @karasti, you feel that you would have advised Siddartha not to leave his wife and child (and had been able to convince him of the truth of your argument) then we wouldn't have had the Buddha.
I used to feel very differently about this.
Thubten Chodron had been married for 3 years when she became a nun, her husband was also a spiritual person and understood and supported her decision.
And, BTW...there's nothing wrong with repetitive topics. I was just pointing out there was an identical topic not too long ago.
John, I think you make some questionable assumptions here.
1. Siddhartha didn't know he was going to become enlightened. He didn't even know there was such a thing as enlightenment. When a hippy-type today (for wont of a better phrase) walks away from family and friends and job "to find himself", he is usually looked on as being irresponsible (at best).
2. The fact that they were going to be well-taken care of, because the family was wealthy, doesn't mean he fulfilled his responsibility.
3. How does one open-ended "obligation" trump rather concrete obligations?
All that is not saying that we didn't all benefit from his action.
1) You're right, of course, none of us set out 'knowing' we will become enlightened but we can have faith that we might and I think Siddhartha had faith that he could and that obligation outweighed that to his wife and child.
2) The fact that they were well-taken care of makes an enormous difference though, morally, surely. Again I argue 'his responsibility' was to his family but also gain Enlightenment if he could and he did.
I really believe he discharged all his responsibilities as he should.
3) The point I was making was that 'with hindsight' we could surely all agree as Buddhists that we are glad Siddartha made the decision be become Enlightened.
I then went on to say " The difficulty is that we don't live with hindsight so personal decisions are often difficult."
By which I meant this process if fraught with difficulty and, you are right, there are people who will abandon their loved ones in an unskilfull manner for an end they are not really committed to.
There are others who say it and mean it and become Enlightened.
I hope you see my point.
Let's turn it around. Had Siddhartha done all that he did and then totally failed in enlightenment and accomplished nothing (and remember, all the time he spent with various teachers of other paths was a failure), I think our response would be very different in terms of what was gained by him. It would be not fulfilling all his other obligations for naught.
That is in fact my very point. Only with hindsight can we say that what Siddartha did was right.
But with that hindsight we surely must agree that if @karasti had been able to convince Siddartha not to go and live the homeless life that would have been 'not OK'.
1. Every time anyone sits down to meditate (or do anything else for that matter), by definition they leave behind friends and family, enemies and heroes. It has nothing to do with anything as fancy as "Buddhism." It has to do with real-time facts. This ... is ... it. It's not something else.
2. Gautama's tale is Gautama's tale. Many of us are grateful for his kind teachings, which seem to pan out pretty well in experienced fact. But to do something "because that's what Gautama did" is like the Filipinos or Mexicans who have themselves literally nailed to a cross around Easter time because "that's what Jesus did." We all do things because we do them. Anything less or more would be irresponsible and Buddhism does not teach irresponsibility.
3. Anyone can look to the past and gauge the actions of another. But that gauging has little or nothing to do with the person being assessed and everything to do with the one doing the assessing.
As Gautama is alleged to have said, "It is not what others do and do not do that is my concern. It is what I do and do not do -- that is my concern."
Is that the principle you typically operate on?
Let's not forget that he didn't really go without anything living at home and his wife and kids were well taken care of.
Plus we also have to remember that Buddha did not awaken in Sid for a few years after he left so it isn't even fair to say Buddha left his family.
After his eyes ere opened he came back to the Gautamas to collect those closest to Sid if they would go with him. He could have went in any direction after leaving his tree but he went back first. The only catch was that they were no longer any closer in relation with him than any other being.
I imagine there are people who are married and even with kids who would say "actually yes if my spouse/partner said they needed to leave me possibly forever to pursue a spiritual path, I would be ok with that." I personally am not, because of the situation we live in. My husband is our only income and we have 2 kids with special needs (one medical, one autism) and him deciding to up and leave to become a monk or a spiritual master or whatever would cause significant suffering to our family and our kids. Their father already died, being abandoned by their stepdad would not be a good thing for them. If I lived in a palace with everything I need taken care of, then that would be a different story in regards to some of the concerns. If 30 years from now he sought to leave on a spiritual journey then my answer would likely be different.
That is also why I left the door open to say in some situations, it might work out just fine. I don't think in most situations in today's world in the United States, that it would. Especially for someone to leave just to become a monk and live in solitude in a monastery.
On one hand, we are all responsible for how we feel and whether we choose to suffer over any particular matter. But on the other hand, as Buddhists, we are asked to not purposely harm others. So how do you get around the question of saying we try to not harm others, yet to do things that we know will cause them harm in the name of "I can only be responsible for myself?"
Can't say I agree with his decision-making in that instance.
Siddhartha lived an extremely sheltered life because his father, a king, was told by a seer that his son would either become a great king or an enlightened sage. Wanting desperately to make his son become a great king, he hid all evidence of suffering (old age, disease and death) from Siddhartha's life. His thinking was that if Siddhartha were not exposed to it, he would not be moved to pursue the path of enlightenment. But Siddhartha grew restless by his young adulthood and wanted to see what was beyond his sheltered palace, which he never left at his father's command. He was married by this time and had a son already, but his father caved a bit by setting up a parade through the main streets of the city outside his palace, where all the elderly, the sick and handicapped were removed before Siddhartha entered. But Siddhartha spotted one old man who got through, who was promptly removed by a guard.
Siddhartha was immediately fascinated and ran to find the old man and wound up walking through the not so nice parts of town, where he encountered for the first time old age, disease and death in others. He later confronted his father about why he hid these things from him, and was so moved by compassion for the suffering of the people he encountered, and by the thought that not only he would one day suffer and die, but his beloved wife and son and all whom he knew and cared for, he vowed that he would find an end to suffering or die trying.
He didn't find an end to all suffering and death, but he did find a way to end the most important forms of suffering... suffering that can be avoided... the suffering caused by one's own ego, by selfishness. He found out how to truly be conscious and at peace, how to cultivate compassion and wisdom, and passed on his way to others so that all may know how to do as he did.
Siddartha's wife -- Yasodhara -- immediately followed her husband's example by rejecting the comforts of royalty and stayed in touch with news of his efforts after he left. She was very interested in his goals and respected his dedication to ending suffering... one might say she gave him the space he needed to work out his problems. After Siddartha achieved enlightenment, Yasodhara and his only son joined him. His wife became a nun. His son became a monk. And they lived happily ever after. Well... his wife passed away before him; she was in her 70s. Is said that she achieve enlightenment.
Princes and princesses are capricious spoiled creatures. Or maybe he was the best, most incredible prince/person ever . . . nah . .. Once awake we change . . .
The Buddha did.
We too have a past. We also can make choices, be householders and renounce the conventional for liberation. Or renounce ordinary life and become focussed on Dharma full time.
The Buddha did OK, I guess we can try for better . . . Staying in the Middle Way does not require abandoning children and partners. The Buddha did not know that. We do.
You think I shouldn't?
Everyone makes decisions every day based on the ends justifying the means.
That is one of the principles behind ethical behaviour, constantly asking 'does the end justify the means' and then deciding 'yes' or 'no'. (Should I eat meat, should I drive when I could walk etc)?
How, as a Buddhist do you make decisions in your life on such matters whilst avoiding such a principle?
We don't even know what portion of the stories about Buddha's life were true and which were stories, just like the Bible. What he taught is what is important. If there are people today who would abandon their children and wives to become a monk or nun, I think, overall, that would be frowned upon. It's quite possible he had his wife's blessing. In some stories he did, and in some he didn't. But we have no way of knowing which is true (or even whether Buddha as a historical person really existed, if you followed that thread) and all we can do is make the best HONEST choice that we know how today.
The Buddha was not too keen on nuns. He was unaware of how the universe works, modern science, other yet to arrive teachings and mystic systems etc. I am sure a lot of people would have rejected his teachings because it did not involve the prevailing idolatry . . .
Despite that, a core of practice, insight and potential for liberation is open to us. What's the plan?
Ummmm.... Not trying to sound obnoxious, but I did say tongue-in-cheek for a reason. But you did make a good point.
To answer your question, no, Siddhartha wasn't a "deadbeat dad" because he left behind a life of luxury to live like a beggar while his wife and child continued to live the life of the privileged upper class. Sure, that deprived the baby of a father. And while he and his wife both loved the baby, between the wet nurses and nannies and servants, it's not like his presence made much of a difference.
But yes, he did abandon his responsibilities. So what? He was just like many of us, a confused young man trying to figure out why he wasn't happy. He wasn't the Buddha yet, not enlightened or awakened to the Dharma.
Also, then and for some time after, Buddhism had a big streak of rejecting the pleasures of a normal life for the supposedly austere life of a begging monk. It was all about what the guy gave up to put on the robe and the women and children left behind were not as important. This practice was wrapped around a very male dominated viewpoint, and there's no sense in sugar-coating it. While Buddha reluctantly and under pressure from a good friend and his own kin accepted women equally into the Sangha, that was never widely accepted even by the monks in charge after Buddha's death. This was a very chauvinistic society and thus their idea of a woman's rights as a wife were vastly different from our own.
But the point is, every situation is different and the ones involved have to make the decision. We can't look into anybody's mind just as we can't look into Siddharta's mind. And we can't judge the situation.
However, to get to my point: People who consider ordination nowadays have to weigh their own options. They shouldn't base it on the opinions of others. Also not on the actions of the Buddha.
But I think, to keep families together is not always the most healthy option for those involved. In case of the Buddha, I think his drive to find peace was unstoppable. We can have compassion for this. The same is probably true for many others these days, also in the case of sons or daughters leaving their parents.
With metta,
Sabre
But what I mean of course, is people who have not been in a similar situation can't really connect to the problem. If all monks and nuns with kids would have stayed home, would they have made good parents? Perhaps we assume so. But in their minds a lot of them could feel very uncomfortable by being locked up and not being able to follow what drives them. So who's to say their kids would have been better off? We can keep holding on to the ideal picture of a happy family, but personally, I'd rather be in a stable one-parent family than in a dysfunctional two-parent family. Perhaps it's for the better of all involved that those monks/nuns left. We can't know. Probably they can't even know themselves.
:clap:
When "The Buddha" left his family - he wasn't "The Buddha" yet - so he could do plenty wrong.....
Our interpretation of what he must have been thinking and feeling is pure conjecture;
But if the history of his existence and origin is to be adhered to, and taken as a plausible fact, then we can only presume that his wife and son were indeed well-cared for in his absence. Siddhattha's father may well have taken Rahula under his wing and brought him up like his own... So it's pretty safe to assume that although we can imagine that the Prince felt grief-stricken and torn about leaving his wife and child, he was completely comforted by the fact that the abandonment would not spell their ruin.
That was his Kamma..... the Vipaka was all in all, fruitful and positive.
Our Queen, who celebrates 60 years as our Monarch, would never have enjoyed the privilege of being a Queen, had her uncle decided to abandon his love for Wallis Simpson (an American divorcee, no less!), and dedicated himself instead, to his role as King....
He chose Love over Duty.
And here, thus, is the consequence.
A common interpretation is that in that time many beings were ripe to become enlightened, because there hadn't been a Buddha for a long time. So that could be another reason we can't just copy and paste things from then to now, and reverse.
Anyhow, I left room for the possibility that in some cases it might work. We keep coming back to Buddha in the discussion but I don't think most people who might consider the question would really think they are leaving their families with a rich family to care for them and so on. While the OP related to Buddha because that is what he did, the question is really whether it is ok today for someone to leave their loved ones in order to become a monk or nun. The answer, apparently, is maybe, maybe not.
If you do not have children, then the answer is likely easier than if you do not. As I said in my other post, once you drop your pants and have sex and a child results, then you are responsible for that child in all ways, not even just until they are an adult but forever. Yes, of course they rely on us less and for far different things as they become adults and take on their own lives, and then you are more free to do what you want than you are when the children are young. You cease to become legally responsible for them and their needs and such. But once you are a parent, you are forever a parent, and you should never enter into that relationship lightly. You might have not made the right decision, but that isn't a child's fault and it's on you as the adult and the parent to make that decision right, to make it the best you can even if you doubt it, even if at times late at night you lay away wondering what life would have been like if you didn't have kids and so on. A lot of adults justify their decision to leave their kids because it is what they want to do. They even justify it as "my kids will be better off without me." But from a kid's point of view, that's usually not true. My kid's dad was about as worthless as they come the last few years of his life, as far as being a good and responsible parent. I'll tell you every day of the week that they are actually better off without him. But if you ask them, they do not, and never will, see it that way. He was a part of them and they are a apart of him and now they are lacking that part, that connection in their lives. Children love their parents to a fault, even if the parents stink. Justifying reasons to leave them is only for selfish reasons and not with the children in mind. Being a better parent, that would be the smart thing to do. Not deserting them.
Anyhows, should you decide the conditions are not yet right to go pursue a monastic life, I have some suggestions which you may consider as alternatives:
1) You might consider becoming a nun only temporarily. Most Thai temples allow short-term ordination for Bhikkhus and nuns, and there is no rule against ordaining, disrobing and ordaining again multiple times. You should check with the temple you wish to ordain with and see if this is possible as well as explaining to them your particular situation. If it is possible, then there is the option for you to consider being a nun for just a few months each year. On the other hand, if that's not possible or not to your liking, you can consider going on lengthy meditation retreats each year as an ordinary layperson.
2) You can also consider observing the eight precepts instead of just five in your daily life. Although traditionally these eight precepts are observed on Full Moon, New Moon and two Quarter-moon days, some people, including those who are married, observe them as a way of life. Observing the 8 precepts is a great way to accumulate merit, further purify the mind and it helps to keep the mind in a conducive state for meditative practices.
3) Apart from the above, if you believe in rebirth, then you still have a chance to spend a lifetime as a monastic in another life. At the end of your daily prayers, you could dedicate your accumulated merit to being reborn as a human in the next life and having the opportunity to ordain. I've been told that actions which create karma supportive of a future opportunity to become ordained is observing the 8 precepts and giving financial support to the costs for the ordination of new monks/nuns.
But I still have a question! Not necessarily for you but anyone. Why is it ok to leave home to go get money, but not ok to leave home to go get something that is one million times more valuable than money? I don't understand! Please someone answer this!
Husband from Mexico comes to US to work, sends money back home so wife and children have food, home and medicine.
Husband from Mexico leaves his family to become a monk. Family has no food, no home, wife gets sick, dies, leaves children as orphans. But the man obtains mindfulness and a better spiritual life.
How can you compare the 2?
Now, if you are talking about a short term engagement where the family is stable and will be fine if the person leaves for, say, a year on a spiritual quest, and then returns, and can teach mindfulness and peace and such to his family? Of course that is valuable. But not if the family starves while he is gone.
If a person does not want to take on the *lifetime* responsibility of getting married and having children, then they should not do so. Changing your mind later is not a reason to abandon those responsibilities.