What would you call a man who leaves his wife and child just becasue he wanted to UNDERSTAND LIFE?
What would you call such a person who walks aways from the responisbility of marriage and fatherhood.?[/QUOTE]
Your question assumes that moral values are the same in all cultures and then you take this opinion to disqualify a founder of a great religion. What would you call a person who does this? A missionary who wants people to seek a morally true path perhaps? But your whole argument is based on a premise that buddha was out of order and selfish but in reality this is your opinion, do you see this? I am not a buddhist but respect all religions.
Buddhism,a cool reliogn with many flaws and man made to suit mankind. Supposedly Buddha is Prince Siddaharta right who got married and had child then left after seeing the pain that his people are going thru.. When i confront my buddhist friend's in SG they wont even reply to the question.. So to any buddhist here.. What would you call a man who leaves his wife and child just becasue he wanted to UNDERSTAND LIFE? What would you call such a person who walks aways from the responisbility of marriage and fatherhood?
I have to say that your understanding of the situation is flawed.
Siddhartha Gautama - whose surname is properly Gotama, indicating ancient East Persian ancestry and that he was of the upper class - was a chieftain of his people. He was the son of the head chief and a very wealthy man. He had an arranged wife who bore him a child.
Our chief had wealth and family and health, but was in deep despair and misery. He was suffering greatly. One day, he left everything behind - his parents and his own family. This was a selfish action, no doubt, but he was full of despair. He gave up everything.
No one makes excuses for the behaviour of the Buddha. He was only a human being. That is kind of the point of Buddhism: we are all human. Divine origin ("avatars") and divine information are not the concern of Buddhists.
The Buddha, like all human beings, was suffering and created suffering in his life. He was not perfect, nor did he claim to be. He didn't claim to have divine authority or to live without sin. Instead, he taught the principles of suffering and dealing with it.
Is your religion real when it costs you nothing and carries no risk? Is your religion real when you fatten upon it? Is your religion real when you commit atrocities in its name? Whence comes your downward degeneration from the original revelation?
In SG it is taught that ( abit of history yeah,in SG we are taught all reliogn,so i dont kow if it is correct but hey that what buddhist in SG are tught).Siddharata is a prince...
So he is not a prince??
Anyway,buddhsim has broken into many sects and different teaching..
And the religon came about because he left everything..
Some say that it is a gallant way,inspiring to leave behind everything..
But for me and i am sure for many people it is a shirking of responisbility toward one wifea dn son and family and PEOPLE....
What would you call a man who leaves his wife and child just becasue he wanted to UNDERSTAND LIFE?
What would you call such a person who walks aways from the responisbility of marriage and fatherhood.?
Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali ring a bell? He did return, eventually, but there was a period, possibly as long as a decade, where there was no assurance of his plans to return. I'm not saying it makes him wrong or the Buddha right, but leaving one's family to pursue knowledge is by no means owned by Buddhists.
"Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police;
We must love one another or die."
September 1, 1939 - W.H. Auden
What would you call a man who leaves his wife and child just becasue he wanted to UNDERSTAND LIFE?
What would you call such a person who walks aways from the responisbility of marriage and fatherhood.?
Your question assumes that moral values are the same in all cultures and then you take this opinion to disqualify a founder of a great religion. What would you call a person who does this? A missionary who wants people to seek a morally true path perhaps? But your whole argument is based on a premise that buddha was out of order and selfish but in reality this is your opinion, do you see this? I am not a buddhist but respect all religions.
Please advise,
ISDhillon:thankyou:[/QUOTE]
Salaam,
Well all i say is that the tree is from the roots.
I see that it is not only my opinion but many other of like mind.
Like i say,Siddarharta married and got a child,lived in splendor and luxury..
And on the next day gave it all up ...casue he supposedly felt for the people whom are poor and sickly and deprived..
For many people they would have worked hard to contribute to soceity,to be doctors or surgeon or politician to aid his people..As a pricne he was in a position to aid otehr greatly.To create law beneficial to his people..
In the storeis it is taught that siddharta contemplated all this but realise that it is just teomporal and thus seek to final, a greater answer....thus he is evading his responisbility
He seek an answer towards life that does nto aid the poor or the needy or the crippled.It just gives an excuse to escape repsonibsility of his life and responsibility as a husband,a father a leader and a defender.
HE was moved by the physical hurt but seek to repair the soul.
"Prince" is the word used to describe him, but in truth, that area was a border region without the established Brahmanical society of India proper. Think of it as a semi-settled place. In the later times, the term Prince would be apt, but his rôle was more of the son of a Grand Chieftain. This area was still semi-Persianate; the East Persians of the time entered Northern India much as the Mongols did later, seizing land and settling in as the upper class.
Much, much later - hundreds of years - the area near Nepal where Gotama was Chieftain had become Brahminised and had adopted the "classical" caste system. The term Khatteya (Kshatriya), which is used to describe the Gotama clan, is anachronistic as the translation of the later use of the term to mean "Prince" in the sense of a medieval kingdom.
Scholars lived in a later time and understood society in what was then India to be like that.
Buddhism isn't really "split into sects". They all treat each other equally. They just apply the principle of adaptating teachings to the needs of the people.
Is your religion real when it costs you nothing and carries no risk? Is your religion real when you fatten upon it? Is your religion real when you commit atrocities in its name? Whence comes your downward degeneration from the original revelation?
I have to say that your understanding of the situation is flawed.
Siddhartha Gautama - whose surname is properly Gotama, indicating ancient East Persian ancestry and that he was of the upper class - was a chieftain of his people. He was the son of the head chief and a very wealthy man. He had an arranged wife who bore him a child.
Our chief had wealth and family and health, but was in deep despair and misery. He was suffering greatly. One day, he left everything behind - his parents and his own family. This was a selfish action, no doubt, but he was full of despair. He gave up everything.
No one makes excuses for the behaviour of the Buddha. He was only a human being. That is kind of the point of Buddhism: we are all human. Divine origin ("avatars") and divine information are not the concern of Buddhists.
The Buddha, like all human beings, was suffering and created suffering in his life. He was not perfect, nor did he claim to be. He didn't claim to have divine authority or to live without sin. Instead, he taught the principles of suffering and dealing with it.
That's an excellent answer, I think. It went way beyond wanting to "understand life"; Gotama left because his mind had reached such a state of flux that, despite temptation, he had no real alternative but to do so. He was destined to become a Buddha.... and his karma had placed him in a position that would enable him to become one.
Both wife and son later became followers, by the way.
“supposedly felt for the people whom are poor and sickly and deprived..”
You are doubting a person by second guessing their mind, how can you then be regarded as genuine when studying comparative religion?, I could say it was courageous of Buddha to give up everything even the ones he loved and dedicate his life to finding a noble path? But then that would ultimately be my opinion and the the millions of Buddhists also.
“For many people they would have worked hard to contribute to soceity,to be doctors or surgeon or politician to aid his people..”
I think the creation of the Buddhist religion which has 500 million followers outweighs the efforts of doctors and politicians, again your assumption is based on your own values for the way people in society should behave
“In the storeis it is taught that siddharta contemplated all this but realise that it is just teomporal and thus seek to final, a greater answer....thus he is evading his responsibility”
but if he felt that responsibility was an undue attachment then Buddhist philosophy does not make a person who does not feel obliged with fulfilling his responsibility dishonourable, in fact society becomes remoulded in such a way where people do not question the character of people because they learned by example, its like saying Muslim countries are barbaric but then you would argue that you have learned by example of your prophet the way punishment is to be meted out, in the same way Muslim societies are also remoulded where no one questions this but an outsider always will. Do you see the hypocrisy?
“He seek an answer towards life that does nto aid the poor or the needy or the crippled.It just gives an excuse to escape repsonibsility of his life and responsibility as a husband,a father a leader and a defender.”
You need to ask yourself what it really is inside you that makes you come to these conclusions? It seems you are intent on picking any hole in the Buddhist religion what purpose will this serve in the long run?
What would you call a man who leaves his wife and child just becasue he wanted to UNDERSTAND LIFE?
What would you call such a person who walks aways from the responisbility of marriage and fatherhood.?
A believer? Are you saying that this is not known in any other religion?
Besides the question you have to ask is how did Buddha leave his family. Did he abandon them to poverty and misery, or did he leave them in his palace with his family to look after them and make sure they were comfortable.
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
“supposedly felt for the people whom are poor and sickly and deprived..”
You are doubting a person by second guessing their mind, how can you then be regarded as genuine when studying comparative religion?, I could say it was courageous of Buddha to give up everything even the ones he loved and dedicate his life to finding a noble path? But then that would ultimately be my opinion and the the millions of Buddhists also.
“For many people they would have worked hard to contribute to soceity,to be doctors or surgeon or politician to aid his people..”
I think the creation of the Buddhist religion which has 500 million followers outweighs the efforts of doctors and politicians, again your assumption is based on your own values for the way people in society should behave
“In the storeis it is taught that siddharta contemplated all this but realise that it is just teomporal and thus seek to final, a greater answer....thus he is evading his responsibility”
but if he felt that responsibility was an undue attachment then Buddhist philosophy does not make a person who does not feel obliged with fulfilling his responsibility dishonourable, in fact society becomes remoulded in such a way where people do not question the character of people because they learned by example, its like saying Muslim countries are barbaric but then you would argue that you have learned by example of your prophet the way punishment is to be meted out, in the same way Muslim societies are also remoulded where no one questions this but an outsider always will. Do you see the hypocrisy?
“He seek an answer towards life that does nto aid the poor or the needy or the crippled.It just gives an excuse to escape repsonibsility of his life and responsibility as a husband,a father a leader and a defender.”
You need to ask yourself what it really is inside you that makes you come to these conclusions? It seems you are intent on picking any hole in the Buddhist religion what purpose will this serve in the long run?
ISDhillon:thankyou:
Salaam,
Thanks for the answer.
As for you assertion that it is noble of Siddaharta to leave his coutnry wife and son ,,,,leaving bereft a coutnry without it's future leader,a wife her husband and a son his fahter............which you say is noble is otherwise repugnant to me.
As you say that Buddhism is having 500 million adherent but then may i ask,if a coutnry has a king are nt all the king venerated and worshipped? Take for exaple the god king of Thailand..do you think it would be better for the current king whom is thought of to be reincarnation of shive(i think or any other hindu god) to elave the kingship and his family and wife behind?
The thai kings even till now from the beginning of the thai kingdom are venerated unto gods...so the point of the number of worshipper is moot.
As for you words "a person who does not feel obliged with fulfilling his responsibility dishonourable" ........let me get this straight,what you are saying is that if a buddhist dislikes his responsibility then then can just abandon it and the buddhist reliogn would not call it dishonourable??
WOW....
As for me picking any hole in busshism...baby i am only asking one simple question..
Why did Siddharta have to have nirvana by abandoning his wife ,his sona nd his coutnry and his people......
A believer? Are you saying that this is not known in any other religion?
Besides the question you have to ask is how did Buddha leave his family. Did he abandon them to poverty and misery, or did he leave them in his palace with his family to look after them and make sure they were comfortable.
Salaam,
So in your mind just becasue some one has wealtha nd power then they can leave their wive and the children they sired?
Wonderful thinking but i guess it is in line wihout materilaistic attitute...ahhhh...
I guess that any father the world over should by hei go thinking be allowed to marry and have childrne and when rich enought just leave them be...no need to know how they are doing ,their mental state of being left of their fahter ,forever anguishing of why their fahter would leave them and the finger pointing betwen siblings that they are the ones to have been the casue ...when all the while it is the father himself./.....
Pretty sad,but i guess it happen more in the future if material wealth can replace emotianal balnace for the spouse and children..
Gee i wish i was a quack ,,will be making big bucks by now..LOLOL
“which you say is noble is otherwise repugnant to me.”
I am sorry you feel that way but make sure you remember that, that does not make Buddha repugnant, opinions are one thing but accusing a devta is quite another.
“to elave the kingship and his family and wife behind?”
in my personal opinion I have no right to poke my nose into family affairs its their choice they have to live with it, I make decisions in my life, i wouldnt make such a decision but my reality is me.
“Why did Siddharta have to have nirvana by abandoning his wife ,his sona nd his coutnry and his people......”
because attachements hold us to this earth and break our concentration but that is not what you meant to say what you should have asked is “is nirvana only achievable through renunciation? – my answer: I don’t believe it is necessary to live in solitude to become enlightened.
“what you are saying is that if a buddhist dislikes his responsibility then then can just abandon it and the buddhist reliogn would not call it dishonourable??”
yep indeeedy I can understand your shocked I get the same feeling when I read what youre people get up to in the middle east and no one thinks these things are dishonourable, muslims have their religious justification and Buddhists have theirs they are both righteous to the societies they live in and they both work evidently
Gurfateh!!!
ISDhillon:thankyou:
ps give me some reps, you know want to, go on admit it
So in your mind just becasue some one has wealtha nd power then they can leave their wive and the children they sired?
No. I am saying men have responsibilities. As long as they fulfil those responsibilities I do not see the problem and I suspect that you are applying a double standard - what about those men who died in jihad leaving behind women and children? Are they selfish?
I guess that any father the world over should by hei go thinking be allowed to marry and have childrne and when rich enought just leave them be...no need to know how they are doing ,their mental state of being left of their fahter ,forever anguishing of why their fahter would leave them and the finger pointing betwen siblings that they are the ones to have been the casue ...when all the while it is the father himself./.....
We do not know if he just left them or if he arranged to make sure they were alright. We do not even know if they were still children. But again there is an Islamic parallel: Muslim men go and fight all the time. They often leave women and children. Was it selfish of them to do so?
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
The parallel is also inapt in that Gotama was sick, as we all are, with suffering. He couldn't make rational choices. Buddhist teachings underline that we all suffer and no one is perfect - without sin. Modern Buddhists may be sensitive to the fact that Buddha left his family and be unable to answer your question, but those with wisdom are able to answer.
We all create suffering in our lives. Buddha's vow was to find a way beyond suffering. In the end, his teachings reject both materialism and asceticism. Practitioners include people with families, people who have "left the family" and those who have no family. There is no right path for reaching the truth.
Is your religion real when it costs you nothing and carries no risk? Is your religion real when you fatten upon it? Is your religion real when you commit atrocities in its name? Whence comes your downward degeneration from the original revelation?
As for you assertion that it is noble of Siddaharta to leave his coutnry wife and son ,,,,leaving bereft a coutnry without it's future leader,a wife her husband and a son his fahter............which you say is noble is otherwise repugnant to me.
In legend at least, King Suddhodana was indeed a powerful king (although in reality, as has been said, he was more likely to have been a local chieftain of some sort, or even just a prominent citizen). After Gotama was born the sage Asita visited King Suddhodana to see the baby, and recognised from certain signs that Gotama was destined to become a Buddha A total of four sages agreed, but Suddhodana wished his son to become king in turn. That was why the young 'prince' was surrounded by as much over-the-top luxury as he was - his father wished to keep him away from the suffering of the world and in particular to stop him go wandering off as an ascetic or mendicant. It backfired totally, as finally it was Gotama's disgust of that luxury and his discovery of the death, disease and poverty he had been hidden from that made him certain he had to leave. It was inevitable it would happen that way - he was destined to become a Buddha.
Both wife and child were well cared for (and became followers of the Buddha themselves), and as far as we know the family or town suffered no great loss as the result of not having Gotama as a leader. We do not know what would have happened if that would not have been the case, but my own view is that it never could have been. Gotama's karma, after many lifetimes of strenuous effort, dictated the position he found himself in, so there is no point in speculating "what if", for example, his family had been poor and needed him to support them. Aside from which,from a practical point of view, do you really think he was likely to make a good leader in matters of politics and war? I very much doubt it! In the first case he wasn't interested, in the second he would have been completely incapable.
As has been said, there is perhaps a difference in cultural values here, too. What Gotama did was probably by no means unusual, although in the Hindu tradition it was probably more frequent later in life once householder duties had been completed and handed on to sons. It was accepted that to achieve spiritual progress it is necessary to make great sacrifices; Buddhism is a religion of self-effort, not of theistic intervention and judgement. People still do the same today if they know their family can look after itself, or will be cared for if necessary, and at the risk of being controversial didn't even Jesus suggest disciples might need to do the same? (Luke 9:57-62).
Who the Buddha was or what he did are unimportant - he made that point frequently himself. It is his teachings rather than him which are important... but eventually even they must be abandoned. There is an old proverb... which must be taken in context, "if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him". Can you imagine anything similar in Islam or Christianity?! The point is that if you "meet" the Buddha, that is achieve a level of spiritual progression approaching his, you no longer need him, or even his teachings. Clinging to them will only hold you back. When you no longer need the stick to walk, you must throw it away and keep going.
No. I am saying men have responsibilities. As long as they fulfil those responsibilities I do not see the problem and I suspect that you are applying a double standard - what about those men who died in jihad leaving behind women and children? Are they selfish?
We do not know if he just left them or if he arranged to make sure they were alright. We do not even know if they were still children. But again there is an Islamic parallel: Muslim men go and fight all the time. They often leave women and children. Was it selfish of them to do so?
Salaam,
For muslim men who fight for Jihad,i ask,would they go and leave their wives alone IF THERE IS REASON NOT TO??
Would they perform Jihad just so ? and for no other purpose?
take a look at Palestine and Iraq and Bosnia,they endure and will survive for they know and care for their LOVED ONES..
Whereas with Siddharta,he willignly sacrifice his family and his wife and son so as to get a better understanding of the hopelessness of life cycle?
“which you say is noble is otherwise repugnant to me.”
I am sorry you feel that way but make sure you remember that, that does not make Buddha repugnant, opinions are one thing but accusing a devta is quite another.
“to elave the kingship and his family and wife behind?”
in my personal opinion I have no right to poke my nose into family affairs its their choice they have to live with it, I make decisions in my life, i wouldnt make such a decision but my reality is me.
“Why did Siddharta have to have nirvana by abandoning his wife ,his sona nd his coutnry and his people......”
because attachements hold us to this earth and break our concentration but that is not what you meant to say what you should have asked is “is nirvana only achievable through renunciation? – my answer: I don’t believe it is necessary to live in solitude to become enlightened.
“what you are saying is that if a buddhist dislikes his responsibility then then can just abandon it and the buddhist reliogn would not call it dishonourable??”
yep indeeedy I can understand your shocked I get the same feeling when I read what youre people get up to in the middle east and no one thinks these things are dishonourable, muslims have their religious justification and Buddhists have theirs they are both righteous to the societies they live in and they both work evidently
Gurfateh!!!
ISDhillon:thankyou:
ps give me some reps, you know want to, go on admit it
Salaam,
Like i say,even at the time of siddharta i disbeleive it is normal for a man to elave his own wife adn son anytime..
And you thought that it is not dishonourable for any man to leave his wife and son,is trully amazing to me...
To say that busshdism teaches to eschew repsonsibility aside FOR ONE OWN SAKE...is pure selfishness...
Nirvana as you say cna be achieved without breaking worldy ties,and thus it proves that siddharta could have acknoledged his wife adn son after gaining nirvana but did not...
If you want to learn about Buddha and Buddhism, you have to actually open your mind to their ideas. Buddhists find the notion of jihad absolute madness and nonsensical, as useless and evil as you find Buddha's search for truth. So if you want to know about Buddha and Buddhism, you need to be willing to listen and not just dismiss offhand.
And it was common for men and women to leave their homes at that time.
Is your religion real when it costs you nothing and carries no risk? Is your religion real when you fatten upon it? Is your religion real when you commit atrocities in its name? Whence comes your downward degeneration from the original revelation?
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks