Mad at the Buddha for abandoning his family

[Kotei]

I have no idea, which assumption about the ancient past might be the most accurate.

But reading through the wikipedia page about Rahula ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rāhula ) was interesting.
Scholars hypothesizing that Prince Siddhārtha conceived Rāhula to please his parents, to obtain their permission for leaving the palace and becoming a mendicant. It was an Indian custom to renounce the world only after the birth of a child or grandchild.
I think it was a time, where children were treated differently.

"Most traditions relate that the Buddha then called Śāriputra and asked him to ordain Rāhula. Rāhula was ordained, becoming the first śrāmaṇera (novice monk), and probably the first person in the monastic order to receive ordination in a formal way."

There are of course also opposing views.

Gassho,
Kotei sat/lah today.

[Doshin]

Good questions and good responses! I agree with much said above. And always the skeptic who knows what really happened if anything happened at all. Thant was a long time ago It has always been hard for me to wrap my head around 500 years of oral stories being passed down before written (I think that is the case). Heck my stories I repeat seem to change in my short time on this wonderful planet

Doshin
St

[Tai Do]

It is a very interesting discussion, both for historical accuracy and Buddhist archetypical mythology, but if I'm not wrong, the early suttas gave us nothing more than a skeleton of a story, missing a lot of bones. All archetypical developments in the Buddha's life were made centuries after his death and from the point of view of a very different society - like Nenka pointed out, Siddharta probably lived in a kind of aristocratic small republic-like tribe, not a powerful Kingdom or Empire, which would only exit centuries later, especially after Alexander's invasions of India and the subsequente Maurya Empire.

With this bare bones, people can make very different readings of Siddharta's early life. One very interesting is the one made by Osamu Tezuka in his manga series "Buddha", in which Siddharta's life was far from a pleasurable one: he was constantly oppressed by his ruling caste proud father who blinded the woman he loved and forced him to marry someone else from the nobility in order to give him an heir. In Tezuka's work, Siddharta left home as a broken man oppresed by his family and seeing in the ascetic life a freedom for his spirit. This story is much different than the tradicional one we are accustomed to, but can be an equally valid one that presents us the suffering of all sentient beings and the quest for a way out of it.

In the end, we can read Buddha's story in many ways, all great and all telling us much about how to live and practice in our own life and situation. We could even see in this story an exemple of what not to do with our loved ones.


Sorry for running long!
Gassho,
Mateus
Satlah

[Jundo]

You mean the movie with Keanu Reeves is not historically accurate? Or was the Buddha really such a hammy actor? (Keanu seems to have graduated from the William Shatner School of Over-Dramatics.)

Frankly, one definition of "suffering" is being forced to watch that movie straight through.

https://youtu.be/vnacmQcifXg

The earliest Suttas (or what are thought by scholars to be the earliest layer of Suttas) are pretty sparse on details. Even then, they were not written down for centuries after his estimated time of life. On the other hand, oral traditions in Asia can be surprisingly accurate, although far from reliable (see, for example, this recent paper by a priest-scholar: Early Buddhist Oral Transmission and the Problem of Accurate Source Monitoring Bhikkhu Anālayo https://link.springer.com/article/10...71-020-01499-z). But, in fact, there is so little information that some scholars even question whether the Buddha actually lived (https://www.academia.edu/82822255/Th...l_August_2022_). At the very least, much of the biography and traditions surrounding the Indian Buddha were added only in later centuries.

With regard to his leaving home, one of the likely earliest Suttas (the Ariyapariyasenā Sutta) merely states:

"I, too, monks, before my Awakening, when I was an unawakened bodhisatta, being subject myself to birth … aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, sought [happiness in] what was likewise subject to birth … illness... death... sorrow... defilement. The thought occurred to … What if I, being subject myself to birth and the rest, seeing the drawbacks of birth and the rest, were to seek the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding … The aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less,, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding?' So, at a later time, while still young, a black-haired young man endowed with the blessings of youth in the first stage of life — and while my parents, unwilling, were crying with tears streaming down their faces — I shaved off my hair & beard, put on the ochre robe and went forth from the home life into homelessness.”

Missing from the story are the details of his wealthy upbringing, the pleasure garden offering women, food, music and other delights, his marriage and child, nor other details of his departure. Nonetheless, the accepted story has come to include his secret ventures outside the palace where he witnessed for the first time scenes of sickness, aging and death, as well as the visage of wandering holy men in search of liberation and truth, and the surrounding story about wife and child.

Sorry to run long. Apologies too to Keanu fans.

Gassho, J

stlah

[Getchi]

Thankyou for raising this issue, its something ive struggled with myself.

I can only accept that it is inline with the idea that in this perfect world people do things i do not like, or that i feel are especially "bad". Though i do not like it, people do leave family behind to pursue all sorts of things, all the way through from drugs to space programs.

There is a record left of a life that is IMO pretty darn human, full of anger, rejection and longing and populated with a cast who all do the same as well - some are annoyingly stupid, or perfect or just repetitively dull witted - and all of whom i recognise within my own self and life. (and not-self).

I guess im saying that my own reaction (which was shock, sadness and confusion) reflects to me my own mind - which is kind of what im here for to learn. So its more important to have these conversations around our acceptance of values and moral statements then just being able to quote the story perfectly.

Thankyou - very thoughtful points.
And gassho Jundo for the teachings as usual (i do like Keanu though that is a particularly tiresome movie).


SatToday
LaH.

[Rich]

As it says above.

Argh!

It is OK to think the Buddha is a jerk for doing this, right?

And still I sit.

Gassho,
Eikyō
Sat

We are all buddhas and sometimes jerks. Its ok to think that the Buddha is a jerk but not hold it too tightly. Most important is what is this buddha doing right now

Sat/lah


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Veronica]

You mean the movie with Keanu Reeves is not historically accurate? Or was the Buddha really such a hammy actor? (Keanu seems to have graduated from the William Shatner School of Over-Dramatics.) [emoji14]

Frankly, one definition of "suffering" is being forced to watch that movie straight through.

https://youtu.be/vnacmQcifXg

The earliest Suttas (or what are thought by scholars to be the earliest layer of Suttas) are pretty sparse on details. Even then, they were not written down for centuries after his estimated time of life. On the other hand, oral traditions in Asia can be surprisingly accurate, although far from reliable (see, for example, this recent paper by a priest-scholar: Early Buddhist Oral Transmission and the Problem of Accurate Source Monitoring Bhikkhu Anālayo https://link.springer.com/article/10...71-020-01499-z). But, in fact, there is so little information that some scholars even question whether the Buddha actually lived (https://www.academia.edu/82822255/Th...l_August_2022_). At the very least, much of the biography and traditions surrounding the Indian Buddha were added only in later centuries.

With regard to his leaving home, one of the likely earliest Suttas (the Ariyapariyasenā Sutta) merely states:



Missing from the story are the details of his wealthy upbringing, the pleasure garden offering women, food, music and other delights, his marriage and child, nor other details of his departure. Nonetheless, the accepted story has come to include his secret ventures outside the palace where he witnessed for the first time scenes of sickness, aging and death, as well as the visage of wandering holy men in search of liberation and truth, and the surrounding story about wife and child.

Sorry to run long. Apologies too to Keanu fans.

Gassho, J

stlah

Keanu Reeves played Buddha? I am a fan and will have to try to find it lol.
Veronica
Sat today

[Ankai]

I think of it this way. The man who left his family to seek what he was looking for was an entitled, selfish, spoiled prince, even if that's not who he wanted to be. He had been raised like veal. He wasn't allowed to see suffering, he wasn't allowed to know sorrow. A person who had been raised that way couldn't possibly comprehend the hurt he was causing other people. But he went out to find his path, and eventually, he sat under that tree and figured it all out. His son, years later, became one of his most ardent followers. I see this as a story of transformation. Well I may not particularly have a lot of use for Siddhartha, he was the man who became the Buddha.
Looking at it in another context, I was extremely young when I became a father and I made a lot of mistakes along the way. I would like to thank my kids, in retrospect, will think more fondly of the man I've become than the man I used to be.

Sat this morning. Early.

[Dogukan]

If my memory serves me correctly, it was a common practice among some castes in the Buddha's time for men to leave their families for a period of time and lead a solitary life. Even at the beginning of the 20th century, Thai (then Siam) princes lived a monastic life for a certain period of time as a necessity of their social position and status. So in the historical reality of that era, Buddha's abandonment of his family, in and of itself, may not have been so dramatic. I believe that the "drama" lies in the Buddha leaving householder life for good, not for a while and not to gain some fame on behalf of his clan. Admirable - if you ask my totally non-objective opinion. According to the traditional story, after a short period of frustration, both his son and wife understood the reasons for his action. And you already know that later on both of them were ordained.

Gassho, Doğukan
sat

[Suuko]

I have always viewed Buddha as a great teacher but never as a flawless human being. The very idea that he made some mistakes is what makes his life journey relatable.

Gassho,
Suuko.


Sent from my M2101K7BNY using Tapatalk

[Jundo]

The following is for the history wonks who would like to know a bit more about this topic:

Some writers addressing womens' issues in Buddhism have discussed the conditions under which women generally lived in Iron Age India, some 2500 years ago. For example:

Women In Theravada Buddhism
By Karen Andrews, Institute of Buddhist Studies, Berkeley, CA

https://www.bhikkhuni.net/women-in-theravada-buddhism/

What, then, was the role of women at the time of the Buddha? The historical Buddha lived in northern India at approximately 500 BCE. Women seem to have held an extremely subordinate place in the society in which he lived. They spent their lives serving. A typical woman spent her youth serving and obeying her parents, her middle years serving and obeying her husband and his parents, and her old age serving and obeying her grown children. Women usually had to marry the husband chosen for them by their parents, although occasionally young women would be given the choice of several suitors. The literature also mentions occasional elopements, without the permission of parents. However, for the most part, daughters could be married off at the discretion of their fathers.

Once married, women were supposed to obey their husband and his parents. Wives cooked, cleaned, bore and raised children, and looked after the servants. Women ate only what was left after the men had finished eating. If a husband was displeased with his wife, he could beat her or throw her out of the house. Divorce could be initiated by the husband, but not the wife. Women were supposed to bear children for their husbands. If no children were forthcoming, the husband would often take another wife. Adulterous wives were punished with death, while adulterous husbands were not punished at all. There were instances in which husbands would give their wives away to other men. Women were lowered nearly to the point of being mere chattel.

The situation in the Buddhist Sangha for women was much better, but still mixed given the surrounding culture. There is also some debate on why the stories depict the Buddha as sometimes saying that the Path is open to everyone, yet he is also said to have been hesitant to admit women to the ordained Sangha. The situation shows the Sangha (as represented by the Buddha) always grappling with surrounding cultural norms:

Why does the Buddha, who is usually willing to bend over backwards to promote the growth and enlightenment of every person, suddenly so hesitant and gloomy when confronted with the opportunity to institutionalize a path towards enlightenment for women? Some recent commentators have argued that this incident never really happened, but was invented later in order to justify changes to the status of the bhikkhunis which were made to bring the practice of institutional Buddhism more in line with societally accepted norms. In other words, the Buddha thought of men and women as equal, and made the bhikkhus and bhikkhunis equal. After his death, the society could not deal with the existence of a group of women which were acknowledged to be equal with or superior to most men. Monastic Buddhism had to be acceptable to lay society, because the monastics were completely supported by the lay people. Therefore, various rules were made to lower the status of the bhikkhunis, and this story was invented to justify the change. This explanation of the story of the Buddha’s reluctance is possibly correct. The scriptures were not written down until four hundred years after the Buddha’s death, which gave plenty of time for small changes to creep into the stories.

Other modern commentators feel that the story is an accurate representation of what actually happened. These people feel that the Buddha himself must have been aware of the problems society would have in accepting an independent order of nuns. He made the rules about the bhikkhunis’ subordinance to the bhikkhus especially to mitigate action against the bhikkhunis. These rules call for gestures of submission on the part of the bhikkhunis, but in no way diminish the bhikkhunis’ ability to meditate and follow the path towards enlightenment. The Buddha may have seen this as the best way to preserve women’s ability to work towards enlightenment within the confines of their society. These commentators generally explain the Buddha’s statement about the amount of time his teaching would survive by saying that the Buddha felt that it was as valuable to reach twice as many people (both men and women) for half the length of time (five hundred rather than one thousand). It is possible that the Buddha thought his teaching would end sooner if women were ordained because he thought that society simply wouldn’t accept a teaching which allowed that much freedom for women.

All commentators agree that what was new and important about Buddha’s teachings about women was that women could attain arhatship and that women could do so by following basically the same path as men. Certain limitations were made on the social equality of bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, and these limitations were probably made in order to increase societal acceptance of the monastic orders.

There is one history book which makes the case that, sometimes in the past, married monks actually brought the kids along to the monastery!

FAMILY MATTERS IN INDIAN BUDDHIST MONASTICISMS

https://uhpress.hawaii.edu/title/family-matters-in-indian-buddhist-monasticisms/

[It is assumed that] Buddhist monasticism is antifamilial; one who becomes a monk or nun severs—or ideally should sever—all ties with family members: parents, spouses, and children; monastics have—or should have—no further contact with their former families; the act of renunciation somehow dissolves marriages; monks and nuns cannot remain married; pregnant women and nursing mothers cannot become nuns; nuns cannot have babies, and certainly cannot raise children in convents; monks and nuns must be—and supposedly therefore were—celibate; those who transgress the rule of celibacy are expelled without hope of redemption.

If assumptions like these are accepted as the basic “facts” of Indian Buddhist monasticisms, we close the door to important questions about the lives of monks and nuns in India: Other than that of the Buddha himself, whose own son, wife, aunt and stepmother, and cousins are said to have joined the early monastic community, were there biological families in Indian monasteries? Did husbands and wives leave home for the religious life together? If so, could they take their children with them? What happens if a nun becomes pregnant? Can she have a baby and still remain a nun? If it is possible for nuns to have babies, are nuns’ babies brought up in a monastic environment? If so, who looks after the infants? What happens when the children grow up? What happens if a Buddhist monk or nun falls from the celibate ideal?

Still, it seems to have been the exception to bring wife and toddlers along. In trying to make its case, the book points to a few limited (very limited) cases where monks brought there kids although, even here, it was felt to cause problems for the Sangha, and had to be eventually regulated:

In the city of Śrāvastī, a certain householder’s wife and relatives had all died, and his wealth was all gone; the householder, the father, was left with his two children. The householder thought to himself, “Among the followers of various [religious] paths it is only the mendicant Sons of the Śākyan who benefit from offerings, and are without grief and suffering. Having gone forth (chujia 出家) in this [religion], there will be no problems.” The householder then took his two children and went to the Jetavana seeking initiation into the religious life (將二兒到園中求出家). The term which I have translated as “initiation into the religious life” is not problematic at all; chujia 出家 literally means “to leave home,” and is a standard translation of Sanskrit pra√vraj “to go forth” or “to leave home and wander forth as an ascetic mendicant.” At least from this passage, then, it would seem that going-forth does not necessarily imply the abandonment of family, much less the severing of all family ties. Indeed, here the householder takes his children, and all are either initiated or ordained.

In our text, no condemnation of this action is made explicit, and the only thing that might be construed as a light criticism, or perhaps even a disclaimer, is a statement to the effect that “the monks, not knowing his intentions, thereupon granted him (and presumably also his children) the going-forth.” The monks, however, receive no condemnation or censure for ordaining a layman along with his children. A few days afterwards, in narrative time, our newly ordained monk sets out for alms. He dons his robe, takes his bowl, and leading his two children he enters the city of Śrāvastī to beg for alms. Visiting restaurants, bakeries, sweet stores and other food shops, his two hungry children see the breads and say, “Daddy, give us some food, give us some bread” (阿父、與我⻝與我餅). The father replies, “Although you may ask, without any money who is going to give it to you?” The two children follow behind their father crying. Witnessing this incident, householders rebuke the monk, saying, “The mendicant Sons of the Śākyan do not sever desire! Within the monastic cells, together with the nuns, they give birth to children” (沙門釋子不斷欲。僧坊内共比丘尼生兒). One person told two, two told three, and aspersions spread throughout the city of Śrāvastī. Eventually word gets back to the Buddha, who is then made to promulgate a rule to this effect: “Henceforth those not a full fifteen years old are not to become novices.” As we will see, this rule was later amended to allow the initiation of boys in some cases as young as seven years old.

We might fruitfully consider the above narrative on a number of levels. This passage is found in the Chapter on Ordination and deals, ostensibly, with the age requirement for novices. On another level, the story reflects the assumptions of the authors/redactors of this monastic code vis-à-vis co-renunciation. Moreover, we also seem to glimpse a layman’s assumptions about renunciation with one’s children. The authors/redactors portray this householder as assuming that he can leave home for the religious life with his two children. The authors/ redactors neither critique nor condemn his actions. Rather, they take it for granted that such a situation might arise. Laymen renouncing the world with their children was not the problem that this rule sought to prevent. The authors/redactors were worried, however, about the corporate image of the monastic order. The problem for the monastic lawyers seems to have been that monks with children calling them “Daddy” in public were bound to raise more than a few eyebrows. Laymen were likely to misconstrue the situation and accuse monks (and nuns) of sexual impropriety. It is this, the charge of unchastity, that the monastic authors/redactors seem to have sought to avoid.

However, there are also some Sutta stories that depict abandoned women and children protesting to their "homeleaving" husbands ...

The Pāli Udāna contains the tale of the monk Saṅgāmaji. According to the text preserved in the Pāli canon, Saṅgāmaji had arrived in Sāvatthi (Skt. Śrāvastī). His “former” wife (purāṇa-dutiyikā) heard that he was in town and decides to pay a visit. Taking her young son, his wife approaches and demands that Saṅgāmaji support her: “Nourish me, recluse, for I am one with a small son!,” in Masefield’s translation. Saṅgāmaji remains silent even though he is thus entreated thrice. Eventually his wife seems to change tack. Putting down her son, she departs, saying, “This is your son, recluse; nourish him!” But Saṅgāmaji will have no part in it. His wife comes back, picks up her son, and leaves. The Buddha, we are told, had seen these events unfold with his divine eye, and what he saw is “impropriety of such a form on the part of the venerable Saṅgāmaji’s former female partner.” Here we seem to have a relatively clear-cut assertion of Buddhist values regarding the support and maintenance of abandoned family members. Monks care not, and that is how things should be: they after all had forsaken worldly ties.
...

Hmmm. [Some commentators did try to explain the above story by noting that, like the Buddha himself, Saṅgāmaji's wife and child had actually been left in the care of his wealthy parents, and that she was mostly interested in his return for reasons of inheritance. Even so ... Hmmm.]

In any event, now we address what Buddhism can and should be in 2023. not the year 523 or 1053. Times and cultures have changed. It should not be necessary for folks to be faced with such an either/or dilemma of either pursuing serious Buddhist practice or leaving spouse and children. Let us now celebrate practicing at home (homeleaving within, even while not leaving home and children and spouse without), as well as to monasteries with decent day-care!

Gassho, J

stlah

[Tokan]

An interesting debate. I am wary of judging some of history by my values, be it true or allegorical. I do find those that risk their lives for various adventures to be in the same category. Expeditions or ocean crossing in kayaks does not sound like responsible parenting to me, but then I went to Afghanistan knowing that death was an option, with a child at home (now I have four so wouldn't go again). Thank you for the varied responses.

Gassho, Tokan (satlah)

[shikantazen]

Rahula (son of buddha) himself became a student of buddhism (became student of shariputra who is buddha's student) and started practicing the way. Had Buddha not made that move, Rahula would have been caught up in samsara. Even though Buddha's action might have caused some temporary discomfort to his son, we can see it eventually helped him.

Another way to look at is that when a person becomes enlightened, it is said that their past 7 generations and next 7 generations are liberated too. In that sense too buddha's move seems to be a benifit to his son

Gassho,
Sam
STLah

[kanshiketsu]

I'm weighing in a little late on this, but just joined Treeleaf. I think this is a really important issue -- one that I've grappled with a bit. I teach ethics as my profession, so maybe I have something useful to offer from that perspective?

Depending on how one thinks about right and wrong, there are different things to be said about Siddhartha Gautama's actions.

From a perspective that is called 'consequentialism' our actions are right provided they bring about the best consequences of any action available to us (there are less demanding variations, but that's the basic view). Given that Siddhartha achieved enlightenment and brought others along with him, he arguably achieved that, and assuming he had to leave his family to achieve that, the action was right. There might be a bit of what is sometimes called 'moral luck' involved here -- if he hadn't attained enlightenment, his actions would have turned out to be wrong!

Tibetan Buddhists seem to me to hew to this consequentialist perspective, so it seems to me that they are committed to this being all that needs to be said about the matter.

Another view is would be that his actions should be examined from the perspective of virtue and vice: he clearly acted contrary to virtue in abandoning his wife and child, that it was a callous and uncaring course of action. It's hard to see how we could say anything else. But one factor that I don't think has been mentioned is that he was given a very artificial and arguably borderline abusive upbringing in being sheltered systematically from disease, aging, death. How can you learn genuine compassion or have a realistic sense of human life if you are sheltered from these? Hence, we could imagine that it was such a shock to him being exposed to these suddenly as a young adult that he realized he had to come to terms with suffering and undertake his grand quest to become a great sage. So, it's a highly unusual background which may explain his choice that had a fortunate outcome. From this perspective, we can see his choices as reflecting a distorted character do to controlling parents.

Gassho,
John

[Guest]

I really appreciate everyone's comments here. They are very helpful to one of those difficult issues in the history of Buddhism that has many sides. I was talking about this the other day with someone and we looked at it from the perspective of what if his wife could no longer tolerate his behavior and she said, "Sid, Get out of here and don't come back until you figure this whole thing out and have something worthwhile to say." And so he did...

Gassho,

Bill (Daiman)

stlah