Did Buddha abandon his family?

[Acumen]

I read an interesting article that described Buddha as abandoning his wife and newborn son to search for enlightenment.  Of course, the following question will sound antagonistic, but doesn't Buddhism teach that husbands are to love their spouses showing them courtesy, and that they are to maintain a sense of duty them? 

-Acumen

[metis]

I read an interesting article that described Buddha as abandoning his wife and newborn son to search for enlightenment.  Of course, the following question will sound antagonistic, but doesn't Buddhism teach that husbands are to love their spouses showing them courtesy, and that they are to maintain a sense of duty them? 

This supposedly happened prior to his enlightenment which occurred years later.  Obviously the scriptural accounts after enlightenment state that, not only duty, but compassion must be shown one's spouse. 

Shalom,
Vern 

[Acumen]

Did Buddha pick up where he left off after he received his enlightenment?

[metis]

Did Buddha pick up where he left off after he received his enlightenment?

I'm not sure what you mean by "pick up".  If you're asking if he returned back to his wife as a husband, the answer is no.  Whether he ever saw them again, I don't know.

Shalom,
Vern 

[Acumen]

If he didn't return to his wife and kid, then how is that any different than neglecting marital and parenting duties? 

[metis]

If he didn't return to his wife and kid, then how is that any different than neglecting marital and parenting duties? 

Since he was a prince, and since they lived with the king, I would assume that they were well taken care of.  I don't know of anything in the Pali Canon that says anything else about what happened, but I'll see if there's someone who's more familiar with the scriptures knows anything, but it'll have to wait for a while.  Also, the Buddha was not a deity either before or even after enlightenment, which he made clear.  "Enlightened" is not the same as "perfect".

But how much of the story is true or not is really quite irrelevant in that it's the teachings that are to be focused in on, tried out, used if they fit, but discarded if they don't.  Most Buddhists do not consider the Canon, or even the supposed teachings of the Buddha, to be inerrant or binding.  Matter of fact, dharma says one should question the teachings.  If one didn't so as such, they'd be "beliefs", and "beliefs" often become like blinders.

Shalom,
Vern 

[Acumen]

But how much of the story is true or not is really quite irrelevant in that it's the teachings that are to be focused in on, tried out, used if they fit, but discarded if they don't.

I disagree.  How he lived his life after the enlightenment is a direct testimony about the significance of his beliefs.  If the father of Buddhism caused or contributed to suffering by abandoning his wife and kid, or if he never reconciled with his wife or was not a good father to his son, not much else matters about his views.

[metis]

I disagree.  How he lived his life after the enlightenment is a direct testimony about the significance of his beliefs.  If the father of Buddhism caused or contributed to suffering by abandoning his wife and kid, or if he never reconciled with his wife or was not a good father to his son, not much else matters about his views.

Well, that may be fine from your perspective, but it sure isn't from a Buddhist one.  Buddha is not to be deified, so having expectations of perfection simply don't fit.  It makes not one iota of difference what the Buddha did in his life today since we simply cannot relive the past.  Whatever he did, he did.  On the other hand, there are his teachings (or at least those attributed to him, even though most tend to think that some of the teachings were added on later).  Those can make a difference today and, for many, they do.

On a personal note, I seriously couldn't care less what the Buddha did or didn't do, or even if he existed or not.  If I were to believe that he was a deity, would that make him a deity?  If I believed that he never existed, would that mean he never existed?   Today at a seminar, one of our rabbis asked me what I believed about God, and I said that I had no opinion-- and I don't.  I've experienced enough to be able to realize that an "opinion" or "belief" is not necessarily a "fact".   

So I really don't lose any sleep over what the Buddha may have done.  Nor do I know if it turned out bad for his wife and kid.   But his leaving is certainly is not held up as a respectable action according to dharma.

Shalom,
Vern         

[Acumen]

Vern,

Well, that may be fine from your perspective, but it sure isn't from a Buddhist one.  Buddha is not to be deified, so having expectations of perfection simply don't fit. 

I don't expect evidence of perfection, but if one claims to have attained enlightenment, then one expects the actions to reflect it.  And if one's actions don't reflect it, then it speaks to the legitimacy or effectiveness of such enlightenment.
 
-Acumen

[metis]

I don't expect evidence of perfection, but if one claims to have attained enlightenment, then one expects the actions to reflect it.  And if one's actions don't reflect it, then it speaks to the legitimacy or effectiveness of such enlightenment.

A truth is not reliant on who's saying it.  A lie is not reliant on who's saying it.  Enlightenment is not reliant on who's saying it. 

Shalom,
Vern   

[Acumen]

Vern,

A truth is not reliant on who's saying it.  A lie is not reliant on who's saying it.  Enlightenment is not reliant on who's saying it.

Right, truth can come from liar, but how do we know it is true?  If a mathematician says that a mathematic formula can provide the answer to meaning to life, but his formula's application proves to be unworkable -- it is certainly possible he is right, but how do we know it?

Why would I invest my time using the formula if the mathematician himself is unable to show that the formula works?

-Acumen

[metis]

Why would I invest my time using the formula if the mathematician himself is unable to show that the formula works?

If one is not willing to try it themselves, then they've made that decision.  Maybe it's a waste of time-- maybe it's not.  But how many times have you taken a chance on something and found out that it really works?

Secondly, your mathematical position really doesn't hold water, since the ultimate proof of a mathematical formula is does it work?  And it may not be the mathematician who will be able to provide the needed proof.  We see this happening in science all the time whereas a scientist proposes a hypothesis, but it's someone else who ends up verifying it (or denying it).  In English lit., Shakespeare got little credit when he was alive for the work that we often judge as masterpieces today.

No matter what the Buddha said, others who came after him worked on the process of enlightenment and came up with something quite remarkable.  Buddhism isn't so much as a religion as it is a process, and it was a process that no lesser an intellect than Einstein admired. 

In Buddhism, one is not encouraged to believe in deities, miracles, holy texts, etc.  Instead, one is encouraged to observe, experience, eliminate beliefs that serve as blinders, study, contemplate, meditate, and make our own decisions based on the best that's available, and if there's not evidence, to leave ourselves free from blind trust or blind beliefs.  Buddhism expects one to challenge the teachers, the scriptures, the beliefs one may have attached, etc.  I know of know other religion that expects people to question it.       

To me, it's like a breath of fresh air. 

Shalom,
Vern     

[Acumen]

Vern,

If one is not willing to try it themselves, then they've made that decision.  Maybe it's a waste of time-- maybe it's not.  But how many times have you taken a chance on something and found out that it really works?

Right, but we don't typically choose religions because "why not take a chance?"

Secondly, your mathematical position really doesn't hold water, since the ultimate proof of a mathematical formula is does it work?  And it may not be the mathematician who will be able to provide the needed proof. 

I agree.  I should have used another analogy, but my creativity tonight is limited.  In regard to concepts like enlightenment, the implication is a higher understanding of certain concepts or interrelationship of certain concepts that others quite simply haven't been able to obtain.  However, with a higher or esoteric understanding comes the ability to demonstrate of such enlightenment at some level.  If someone told me they were an accomplished paramedic, and yet he didn't put an ECG monitor on a patient complaining of chest pain, or didn't acquire a blood sugar sample on a patient with stroke symptoms, then I might not trust his future suggestions on patient care.  This probably is another poor analogy, but it's getting late.

[metis]

Right, but we don't typically choose religions because "why not take a chance?"

Who said anything about choosing a new religion?  What I was referring to was possibly trying different teachings and seeing if they help out.  If they do, you obviously may choose to use them.  If they don't, then it's probably best to discard them.

About 8 or 9 years ago, HHDL told the French, who were converting to Buddhism in significant numbers, that it was unnecessary to convert and that they could remain within their own traditions and utilize any dharma that they saw fit.  He has made that point many times since, and it's one of the reasons why he feels very comfortable speaking in front of non-Buddhist audiences.  And, as far as the audiences are concerned, it is not only I who have found his message to also be as "a breath of fresh air".



 

However, with a higher or esoteric understanding comes the ability to demonstrate of such enlightenment at some level.  If someone told me they were an accomplished paramedic, and yet he didn't put an ECG monitor on a patient complaining of chest pain, or didn't acquire a blood sugar sample on a patient with stroke symptoms, then I might not trust his future suggestions on patient care. 

Certainly one would hope and expect as such, but the point still remains in that it's the teachings, not the person that matters.  Remember: "if you see the Buddha, kill him" (obviously not taken literally). 

But it appears to be a moot point after all.  I went over to BNet to get some help on the matter, and it appears that the tradition states that the Buddha did go back and that his son and wife became enlightened and taught dharma as well (http://community.beliefnet.com/forums/showthread.php?p=219849#post219849).



Shalom,
Vern 

[Acumen]

Yes, it is a moot point now.   

[jacknky]

Acumen,
Vern doesn't need my help as he's explaining things very well. Still, I'd like to add that, as I understand it, the Buddha's teachings are not a set of beliefs to be believed but a set of guidelines to be tried out, a path to follow that we may or may not find helpful.

Perceptions of the Buddha's "godhood" are not helped because, humans being humans, we did come along later and deify the Buddha. We created rituals and scriptures and all the trappings of religion. If you go to a Buddhist temple in Asia you very likely will see people praying to the Buddha. But it's my understanding the Buddha never said he was a god and he enjoined us to question the teachings, not follow them blindly.

Peace...

[Tubal Cain]

Believe nothing because a wise man said it.

Believe nothing because it is generally held.

Believe nothing because it is written.

Believe nothing because it is said to be divine.

Believe nothing because someone else believes it.

But believe only what you yourself judge to be true.

~The Buddha.

[Acumen]

Believe nothing because a wise man said it.

Believe nothing because it is generally held.

Believe nothing because it is written.

Believe nothing because it is said to be divine.

Believe nothing because someone else believes it.

But believe only what you yourself judge to be true.

~The Buddha.

What is interesting about these 5 "believe nothing" aphorisms is that they are indeed some of today's logical fallacies.

1. and 4.)  are appeals to authority.
2.)  is an appeal to belief (bandwagon fallacy).
3.)  Is an appeal to tradition.

So, Buddha at least recognized some common fallacies before they were recognized by current logicians. 

[Acumen]

His last statement is superfluous.

Absolutely.  In fact, it doesn't seem to follow from the other aphorisms.  The "believe not" aphorisms are actually statements of wisdom.  The last one, however, would be rather unwise if followed.  Should patients only accept what they themselves judge as medical truth when it flies in the face of what the doctor is telling them?  It could have been a later interpolation -- it just doesn't seem to follow from the rest.

[Tubal Cain]

Haven't you ever heard of the double blind experiments that researchers have to use because of the power of belief? We can claim to believe whatever we want to, but our lives are reflections of our true beliefs. We all experience exactly what we think we deserve.