The Buddha's leaving home
zenguitar
Bad BuddhistNew England Veteran
Greetings, mindful Sangha. Most Buddhists just take it for granted that Siddhartha Gautama had to leave his wife and child behind in order to go out into the forest and achieve enlightenment. But how, I wonder, do you explain this sort of thing to someone in a Western, family-oriented society in which celibacy and renunciation are considered an aberration, never mind a father abandoning his family in order to achieve spiritual freedom? I remember a friend of mine years ago, a Chinese man actually with no particular spiritual orientation, criticizing the Buddha for just this reason, and I recall that I had no good response to his criticism at the time, possibly because I was having some doubts about it myself. What do you think? Is it just something to rationalize away? Or chalk it up to cultural differences?
Comments
He wasn't "The Buddha" when he left home, he was an unenlightened human being like anyone. Not so hard. I compare "enlightened vs. unenlightened" to "adult vs. child"... humans make mistakes and do things that not everyone agrees with (and we understand the difference between a child and an adult performing the same unskillful action, and make allowances), but it wasn't "The Buddha", an enlightened being, that performed that action.
If you will, it was his former self.
It's almost like comparing two completely different people, which is the same when we compare a child to its later adult form... so much changes, and we recognize the ignorance of childhood, that we understand it's not really the "same" mentality at work. The same continuum, yes, but the mind does change.
I think you assume most Buddhists don't consider it. I've seen a fair amount of arguing about this topic in various places online. There are no easy answers but culture is certainly part of it. Though the baby Siddartha was left for a time without his dad, he had a good life and many helpers in raising him (in theory as far as we know) which is no different than kids with military parents, for example. Buddha's wife, son and others benefited from his enlightenment, too.
Not much to add. As @AldrisTorvalds pointed out, he was not enlightened when he left home. What he was, according to the sutras, was obsessed with the question of why people suffer. And it's also true that he didn't leave his home to find a girlfriend or enter some new career as an artist or even travel the world. He left a life of luxury, moved into the forest and became a student of the old ascetic monks where he just about starved himself to death. In other words, he was not a picture of what we could call a well balanced mind. Perhaps his great insight and awakening was possible because of his total and single-minded devotion to his quest.
And it's also not like he abandoned his wife and child to a life of poverty or struggle. As a Prince, he would have had concubines before and during his marriage he also walked away from, and this arranged marriage would have been political and he did perform his duty of providing a son, an heir before leaving. His wife would have remained the mother of the heir no matter what. So yes, it's also partly cultural.
Wasn't he married at a very young age? Being royal his marriage was most likely arranged, and we know his life was very sheltered to prevent him discovering the truth of suffering, so you could liken him to a child at the time he left home.
In any case, I don't think it's very fruitful to pick over the details of the life of someone who has been dead for thousands of years. What matters now is your life and what you decide to do with it.
I think there is a big chance of misunderstanding if we look at other's culture from our cultural view point.
Yeah. I struggle with this one sometimes too. When my four year old daughter is on tantrum number five for the day I think "well the Buddha can't help me with this one coz he was out sitting in a park when mini Guatama was this age!"
That's me being cranky though.
What he did was for the greater good!
Don't forget too that he could have gone in any old direction when he got up from that tree but he headed toward the Gotamas.
I've never understood this criticism. Take for example a father leaving his family in a poor 3rd world country to come to the united states, legally, to get a job to get more money for the family. This is considered a perfectly fine thing to do. What the Buddha did was essentially the same thing, except what he went to get had a value far greater than any amount of money.
Why is it OK for a father to leave his family to get money and not OK for the father to leave his family to get something that is far more valuable than money? That makes no sense!
@seeker242 I have read that he wanted to understand suffering for himself. Not for the good of mankind?
And also something about him fighting over whether to come back into the world or not?
A god or something told him to go help mankind with the dharma. So he did?
I could be completely wrong with this but I read it somewhere. I apologies for not having the source with me. Just food for thought
Also I'm going to ad that wasn't the sutras written hundreds of years after Buddhas death? Past on from monk to monk verbally for hundreds of years?
Reason I bring it up is because his upbringing may be scetchy with the facts. Calling him a bad father is based on no facts what so ever. Same with calling him a good father
Who knows how/why he left his family. For all we know his wife could of given him the boot for not doing the dishes again!
All I know is he spread wisdom about reality and worked everyday even until his death. Even his final breath. Good enough for me!
If they were poor and depended on him to survive then I'd likely have a different opinion. However, if I remember the story properly the king was still alive and the Gotamas were doing rather well.
Thanks everyone. I guess my original question was really more how to explain it to someone who can't fathom why someone would leave the life of a householder for spiritual reasons, and who may even view it as "proof" that there is something morally suspect about Buddhism (not my opinion of course).
There is something morally suspect in all religions and all behaviour can be treated suspiciously. It is a trivial pursuit.
Did the mother killing, father disappointing, feckless father, responsibility abandoning, deitrary extremist Goatarmour find a way to awakening for us equally confused and lost life participants?
Yes would be my answer . . . :wave: .
Of all the questions I ever get about Buddhism, the life of Buddha, much less any specific details about it, is never among them. I wouldn't bother taking the time to tell the entire story (which more than likely is at partially just a story) to someone because there is no point. If someone did ask,I would keep it as brief as possible and would see no reason to even point out that he left his wife and child to seek answers.
You bring up a good point. It wasn't long before the myth and legend overshadowed the man and actual events. I have a poster with a series of paintings showing Gautama's mother being visited by a sacred white elephant, and so on. I suspect the young Prince had his life of luxury exaggerated just a bit. And that entire story of the trip outside of the palace at the age of 29, where for the first time he saw a sick man, a dead man, and then a holy man, and that sparked his obsession with suffering? Give me a break.
The traditional answer to the question of what we should think of Guatama leaving his family and home? It is that we should rejoice that Buddha is fulfilling his destiny. It was sort of like a husband going off to war, only Guatama was going to battle Mara and give us the great gift of the Dharma.
We do not know much at all about the actual circumstances of Siddhartha’s life, but you can bet that much of the Legend consists of something akin to the confabulation that some people with Alzheimer’s do to “fill in lost memory.” That is what "History" consists of, what people say and what the historian (or gospeller) writes down. The actual details (“memories”) of Gautama’s life are “missing,” and Legend enriches and makes sense of his life. In the ancient tradition, the gospellers, or storytellers, artfully related the life details in such ways as to make the hero look either superhuman or even divine. There are countless examples of this in the gospels and legends that have survived in the written records of the many civilizations. Now to have given up the creature comforts of his soft, sumptuous home and to have forsaken the tender embraces of his wife and newborn child —missing all that — would surely have been a tremendous sacrifice for anyone to make. Thus this gets to be part of the story —part of the hero’s glory.
Remember, too, that even Jesus bade his disciples to leave their wives and family and to come, follow him.
Let’s say that in our own day several young families fled to, say, the United States from, say a country in darkest strife-torn Africa such as The Congo. Then, say, after many years one of their sons, who had married into another Congolese-American family, became tremendously proficient and financially successful with a major league professional American team. He made millions and millions of dollars and secured a good life for his family. But then, another bloody civil war broke out in the Congo. After months of soul-searching, he decided to leave his family (albeit in excellent economic circumstances) and go over to the Congo, where he was known and trusted, to do what he could with his tremendous resources —both personal skills and millions of dollars. Now, most people would probably not understand this; that he HAD to follow his inner calling. But I do not think, either, that they would criticize him for his decision or that they could find grounds for doing so.
Now how is this case fundamentally different than Siddhartha’s was? The Buddha could no more take his wife and baby son along with him than could our stipulated Congolese-American hero.
This might give you an idea of where Siddharta Gotama was coming from when he left his wife. He did not sneak out in the middle of the night as is usually portrayed. His question was existential. What is life all about?
Exactly. The story is a metaphor.
The point of the story is that worldly success and prosperity are less important than spiritual liberation.
We too should leave our home in the sense that we shift our prime focus towards spiritual practice.
Yes, I like this metaphor interpretation. Sadly, all too many people like to interpret religion literally rather than metaphorically.
Yes, the cultural context is important. And didn't his wife and son become enlightened in the end? I believe I read that the Buddha (after enlightenment) resisted the idea of women becoming monastics, but then accepted it. Hmm.
I, for one, don't think that Shakyamuni being open to persuasion by the arguments of others puts him in any bad light at all.
Just commenting on the above... But the issue that draws me to this thread is the claim made by some in this world that Siddhartha was morally culpable for his actions. I just cannot accept that. The avatars of the World religions are above such moral scrutiny and are to be revered. There seems to be a strain among Western Buddhists that doesn't seem to subscribe to any sort of special status given to avatars. I even recall in an earlier thread on this subject where one of our esteemed moderators agreed that Siddhartha was a "deadbeat dad." That makes absolutely no sense to me, as his family was left not only in wealth but in opulence with plenty of sound guidance, both male and female.
Contrary to some opinions on this board, I believe that this issue is an important one; But maybe that is just my Western training.
Honestly, I'm not sure why people try to criticize religions by pointing out character flaws in prominent figures in the religion. If the teachings themselves are what matters and contributes to a better world/life, then does it matter if Jesus/Gautama Buddha/Muhammed/Abraham/Krishna/whoever did/said this one questionable thing according to our current societal norms?
@Nirvana, I have just the opposite view.
Buddha, and others of his ilk, should be held even more responsible for their everyday behavior. Buddha claimed to be a man, not a god. Okay, then stand with the standards we hold to other men...in fact, stand above them.
Some say he should be excused for leaving his family because he was successful. Does that imply that those teachers who might do the same, but failed, should be held at a higher standard than those who succeed?
@Invincible_summer, if we aren't going to question things based on our "current societal norms", why are we trying to question things based on historical societal norms?
But, it is what it is. We can't change what may have been history. So, move on.
That's actually sort of what I was trying to get at. So long as what the teacher/saviour/guru/prophet did was not extremely egregious (and even that is subjective), if it doesn't affect the teachings of the faith tradition, then why talk about it?
But, we are, and we do often...not exactly a new topic. And, we need to sort out apparent differences between what is taught and what is done.
I wonder if he left the key under the mat in case he changed his mind? There must be a sutta about that. Don't believe me? I bet someone, somewhere can find reference.... Just as reference is found with regard to the Buddha rejecting women from the Sangha... I mean, as it's written down, it MUST be true, right...? :rolleyes: .
I was right:
>
With care and consideration, anyone can be coerced into believing anything. It is up to us to evaluate, to look at an argument from all sides, to put ourselves in the shoes of both the Yea and the Nay sayer, and decide which avenue would be most skilful, logical and fluid; that is, if it fits all the way round, take it. If it's like jammin' a square peg into a round hole, or forcing your feet into one-size-too-small shoes - think again.
Damn, Federica is getting philosophical!
Oh I'm sorry, is my slip showing?
.
LOL!
By the way, keeping to 'the rules'....Here is where the above quotation is TAKEN from (section III).
The Buddha had not much control over his life in the lap of privilege until his first encounter with dukkha.
Even his marriage had been arranged for him. And the son was a natural consequence of his marriage.
The urgency of his departure was probably the first real decision he had taken up to that moment, and hard as it was, a necessary step to assuage his existential musings.
The fact that later in life he was able to make it up to his beloved ones for this seeming fault, is to me a confirmation of the wisdom, not only of the human being who as such is bound to make mistakes, but of the Dharma he preached.
As a Zen student then, I took my Zen teacher, Kyudo Nakagawa Roshi, a Japanese man who ran Ryutaku Monastery for a while, pretty seriously. He ran the monastery in Japan and a couple of lay-oriented centers in the U.S. I supposed he was as keen on "enlightenment" as many others, though I never heard him do a war dance on the topic.
One day, he and I were discussing the direction/purpose/meaning of Buddhist practice ... I was poking and prodding like a lot of other students in other venues and with varying emphases: Was his effort over so many years aimed at something that might be called "spreading the Dharma" or something similar?" If so, shouldn't he hop on the Internet (among other tactics) and push hard-harder-hardest? What was his job as a Zen teacher, from his point of view?
Kyudo knew I had a wife and children but I never heard him hold that situation up one way or another ... it was just the way things were ... and so when I asked him what he thought his job might be, I wasn't entirely what answer to expect ... would it be to forsake family in pursuit of a rich understanding; would it be to pit lay life against 'enlightened' life or vice versa; what sacrifices, vast or otherwise, needed to be accomplished?
Kyudo was Japanese. Saying things once was enough, when it wasn't already too much. And so he left me slack-jawed when he said, TWICE -- "take care of your family." "My job is to encourage people for zazen. Take care of your family." He wasn't about to get into a grand discussion about Buddhism or enlightenment or other subtle and profound things ... just take care of your own true family and do your practice and see what happens. If enlightenment happens, enlightenment happens. If Buddhism happens, Buddhism happens. What happens to you and what happens to me is different ... and the same because family is family ... a big deal and not a big deal at all.
Practice ... set aside what lacks usefulness ... use what is useful ... find your family and take care of it, even if you imagine you haven't got one.
Sorry ... a bit of a toot. FWIW.