It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was Buddha a "deadbeat?"

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   


Buddhists don't worship a man.There have been about 21 Buddhas,men who have reached the highest plane of Nirvana,and it is their words,deeds and actions that are honored.


I know they don't.

I also've been around this forum to know that there's a portion of the posters who wouldn't know the difference between following a man's example and worshipping a false idol.

I wanted to kill the "My faith is better than your faith!" before it even got started.




posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Directed at a couple of responders:

While the wife and child were left in *material* comforts, I can't help but think that there must have been some pain to them by the Buddha's leaving, an arranged marraige doesn't mean they inherantly hated each other.

But I guess we can never know for sure.

Besides, if they acheived enlightenment in the end (I found some varying accounts of how this actually happened) I suppose it all worked out

I'd imagine it's as true for Buddhism as it is anything else, you can't force faith and enlightenment, they have to come when the supplicant is willing,

But in the end, as someone pointed out, the BUdhha helped millions of people.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
Buddhists don't worship a man.There have been about 21 Buddhas,men who have reached the highest plane of Nirvana,and it is their words,deeds and actions that are honored.


Quoted, so that this thread may end...
If you want to attack a religion, attempt to know something about it first?



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
When you are in the presence of a Master, life is much different than the reality you know. When you love a being and that being is already filled with guiding light, you have a level of trust that is of the divine.

Trust is a beautiful phenomena, give it try some time and see!



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Hi,

I used to do a lot of reading on the different religions. It may be controversial, but I read that Buddhism came out of Hinduism. Whether that it true or not, is not what I am getting at. My point is, that if it is true, Hinduism has a tradition that once a husband reaches a certain age that they were expected to leave his family and go on his spiritual quest. Usually by that time there was an adult male child who would support the wife.

For Buddha, the necessity of supporting his wife is a moot point since she was adequately cared for.

In the bible is a verse wherein Jesus says: And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name's sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life.

Also, it is well known, I think, that Jesus' disciples left their homes, and all that entails, to follow him.

Seems to be a widely accepted custom this leaving of the home and wife and children to go on a spiritual quest. Though, at the same time, I believe that those dependents must first have their welfare taken into consideration and also their wives were not divorced. They remained married.

Perhaps after the 'quest' that the men returned home?



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Shar_Chi
 





Quoted, so that this thread may end...
If you want to attack a religion, attempt to know something about it first?


WTF?!?

How is that an attack??

I was clearing up the fact that Buddhists don't worship a man,(only coz i'd misread the OP.) and you claim i know nothing about the faith!!


Whatever dude



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by L.I.B.
Hi,

I used to do a lot of reading on the different religions. It may be controversial, but I read that Buddhism came out of Hinduism. Whether that it true or not, is not what I am getting at. My point is, that if it is true, Hinduism has a tradition that once a husband reaches a certain age that they were expected to leave his family and go on his spiritual quest. Usually by that time there was an adult male child who would support the wife.



Well, I'll be, L.I.B.. I wasn't aware that there was a cultural expectation for men to make that kind of journey.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2
In our current culture, we frown upon anyone who would abandon his or her children, but it's well-known that in his quest for enlightenment, the Gautama Buddha left his young wife and child for his spiritual pursuits:


Siddhartha spent his boyhood at Kapilavastu and its vicinity. He was married at the age of sixteen. His wife's name was Yasodhara. Siddhartha had a son named Rahula. At the age of twenty-nine, Siddhartha Gautama suddenly abandoned his home to devote himself entirely to spiritual pursuits and Yogic practices.

www.buddhabihar.com...


It has always intersted me to know that the Buddha has so many followers, yet has this "stain" in his background.

There are many in this forum (you know who you are!) who would be quick to say something along the lines of "That's what you get for worshiping a man!"

Granted familial abandonment is quite a large stain, and I would not disagree that it seems a quite greedy thing for the Buddha to have done, but of course this happened before his "enlightenment..."

THere is one thing that I find comforting about the episode, and perhaps why it happened. It shows that even the greatest of us humans is, at heart, dualistic, and that, depending on our choices and the effort we are willing to expend, we can linger among the most debased of people or rise up to "enlightenment."

Without turning this into an arugument of the merits of one religion versus another, let's discuss this. Does this element of the Buddha's past discredit all of his later work, or does it instead teach us a valuable lesson?

Mod Edit: Added Link.

[edit on 30/9/2008 by Mirthful Me]



Dude you need to understand the whole history and cultural background where he comes from. Gautama Buddha was a Hindu prince most of his deeds where based on Hindu belief. In Hinduism a man's life divided into 4 parts 1. Child, 2. Youngster, 3.Married and finally 4.Saint or monk. I dont want to go into details why its divided into 4 or why the last stage is saint. Last but not the least he dint leave his wife and son with out food or shelter rather he gave his whole kingdom to them.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 





Without turning this into an argument of the merits of one religion versus another, let's discuss this. Does this element of the Buddha's past discredit all of his later work, or does it instead teach us a valuable lesson?


The lesson could be;in the pursuit of the ultimate goal,nothing should stand in your way.

And i suppose it would discredit his work if we knew his actions had a detremental effect on his family.As someone mentioned though,his wife and a son became his followers,so i'm guessing it didn't and therefore it shouldn't be a problem.(it also means i'm wrong about the loveless marriage.lol)
It should be taken into account that his wife may have encouraged him to go on his quest for enlightenment.





but I have always heard that after one reaches "nirvana" then he doesn't come back anymore.



Nirvana is a state of "deathlessness" and is freedom from the conditioned mind.But it is not death.Nor is it a place or a state,it is a realization of absolute truth.Physical death(parinirvana) of someone who has achieved Nirvana is the final state of the life and death cycle,they will never be reborn.





To explore the question of whether one's "Sins" or "Karmic Actions" stick around after enlightenment to haunt you, or if they can be washed away.


Karma is based on the cause and effect actions of life.If you do something wrong you will at some point in time pay for it.If you do something good you will be rewarded.


Buddhism has many classification of karma.

1)REPRODUCTIVE.2)SUPPORTIVE.3)OBSTRUCTIVE.4)DESTRUCTIVE.5.) WEIGHTY.6)PROXIMATE.7)HABITUAL.8)RESERVE.9)Immediately Effective.10)Subsequently Effective.11)Indefinitely Effective.12)Ineffective.

read more about it here-
www.buddhanet.net...
www.buddhanet.net...



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 


Thanks for your links Jakyll

It frustrates me that most of the accounts of his early life don't take into account whether or not she supported him. It's not that big a deal in the long run, but I'm curious.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 

Some Buddhists DO apparently seem to worship Buddha....I dunno about you, but when people sit in a huge group and start chanting "I seek refuge in Buddha" I don't see it as anything other than worship....and this isn't some isolated incident done by only some fringe group of buddhists.

As for being 'trapped in a loveless marriage', that is one of the funniest, most 'modernistically western' things I've ever heard said. It's funny that you'd axiomatically think that a marriage should be only of love, when such a concept is amazingly recent, and only fully developed in a certain part of the world far removed from anything Buddhist:
Think about it- exactly how and why is the concept of a union between a man and a woman (and their families too, probably) for the purposes of procreation and financial security related in any way to any sort of romantic and westernised concept of 'love'?

It's like an arab saying something like "Yeah, those americans felt trapped in their monogamous marriages, why shouldn't they break away and shack up with as many wives and concubines as they like?"

As the OP said, this is not a "my-religion-better-than-your-religion" thread, but there are a sufficient number of things I find hokey with Buddhism so as not to accept it as a whole- like the concept of the glorification of a whole group/section of the population that lives off alms and begging, which is another thing I that I absolutely disagree with- it's disgraceful for a person who is in perfect health to be begging- which sort of ties in to what the OP said about Buddha being a 'deadbeat' (not that I'd use such a strong word
).

EDIT: asmeone2, about your question, yes, his wife ended up 'forgiving' him...it's mentioned, and it's quite a cute story. When Buddha went back to his hometown, first he met his father, who wanted him to become king, but after hearing him, accepted what he preached. He took him to his castle to speak to those there, but his wife refused to show up (it says she was very unhappy, had cut her hair, wore simple clothes, etc), so Buddha went to speak with her. When his wife saw him, she fell to his feet, and wept, then went and sat a distance, and was comforted by Buddha's words.
Later on, when Buddha came again, she sent his son to him, and told him to ask Buddha for his share of his property. When his son did this, he was accepted into Buddha's sangha.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by babloyi]



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


huh..very interesting. That is an interesting perspective.

I have always had the impression of buddhists monks to be holy andvery unselfish. And most still probably are.

Would not surpsise me though. Enlightenment at the expense of another.


But to be fair, i don't think anyone from anyother religion could say a thing. Especially the likes of Christianity.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 





As for being 'trapped in a loveless marriage', that is one of the funniest, most 'modernistically western' things I've ever heard said. It's funny that you'd axiomatically think that a marriage should be only of love, when such a concept is amazingly recent, and only fully developed in a certain part of the world far removed from anything Buddhist:


You really need to read the whole thread,it aint that big.If you do that you'll see that I said i was wrong about the loveless marriage.


And,as i'm from the west and i live in modern times,i'm gonna mention marriage for love aint i?!?

I mean,when you think about it;where i'm from and the time i live in,i'm not gonna mention anything different...arranged marriage! what the hells that
i obviously don't have a clue!?!


And from what you said in your thread,you most certainly don't!





It's like an arab saying something like "Yeah, those americans felt trapped in their monogamous marriages, why shouldn't they break away and shack up with as many wives and concubines as they like?"


I have heard "arabs" say similar things.They are human beings y'know.They gossip just like we do,they're not all stuck in the past.

And you may find this link useful,gives you a bit of info why some "arabs" don't like concept of western marriage.You may not agree with it,the guy talks from an eastern p.o.v.Probably coz he's from that culture,i dunno.

en.allexperts.com...











[edit on 1-10-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 

You misread my post. I was referring to the OP's attack. I was waiting for someone to point out they don't worship Buddha. Rather, they revere the teachings of the Buddha. Besides, if the Buddha can transform from a 'deadbeat' to enlightenment, maybe there's some hope around here.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by abelievingskeptic
 





I have always had the impression of buddhists monks to be holy andvery unselfish. And most still probably are.


They are.
But,like you said,their enlightenment comes at the expense of others.Earthly things,material things;these hold you back.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Shar_Chi
 





You misread my post. I was referring to the OP's attack. I was waiting for someone to point out they don't worship Buddha. Rather, they revere the teachings of the Buddha. Besides, if the Buddha can transform from a 'deadbeat' to enlightenment, maybe there's some hope around here.


Ah.Apologies and no worries then


Its all down to karma.Do good and reap the benefits.Do bad and pay the price....thats obviously simplifying it,but you know what i mean...hopefully.lol.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 

You are right, I didn't see that particular comment you made over there...but that wasn't my point. A marriage initiated because of love would not necessarily be the norm (in fact, it was quite possibly the exception). Besides, when he left his home, Gautama chose the 'search for the truth' over his wife....perhaps he was justified, but the fact remains that he did so- does this show any special love he had towards his wife? I don't know.

Just because one is of one culture and history, doesn't mean one cannot learn about other ones. Pederasty was prevalent in ancient times (among greeks, romans, celts, etc), and it was considered quite normal and innocent. Because we have a clearer perspective today, does that mean that all who practised it were wrong, or evil? Same can be said of slavery. Were all slave-owners evil? Or of racism....just because a person used certain 'n-words' when talking about black people, and was taught that they were inferior, does that make them evil?
All these examples I'm giving are obvious 'wrongs' by todays standards, but there are many that are frowned upon today, which are (when looked in a disconnected and objective way) not really wrong or harmful at all and may actually be 'beneficial', like what you mentioned: an arranged marriage, or for another example, a purely 'contractual' type marriage, which may not involve love at all.

I'm sorry if I had a biting tone in my previous post. What exactly do I not have a clue about? Which thread are you talking about?

Apologies for the off-topic. Once again, while not wanting to engage in my 'my-faith-your-faith' type argument, while Buddhism may not necessarily teach a complete rejection of the physical for the spiritual, a lot of it does (as can be evidenced by peoples' perception of it here). As far as I'm concerned, a belief system that encourages this sort of behaviour wouldn't do very well on this earth, and I'm not just talking about paying the taxes. One needs to balance the physical and the spiritual.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by babloyi]



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Sorry too and apology graciously accepted.



Apologies for the off-topic. Once again, while not wanting to engage in my 'my-faith-your-faith' type argument, while Buddhism may not necessarily teach a complete rejection of the physical for the spiritual, a lot of it does (as can be evidenced by peoples' perception of it here). As far as I'm concerned, a belief system that encourages this sort of behaviour wouldn't do very well on this earth, and I'm not just talking about paying the taxes. One needs to balance the physical and the spiritual.


Gonna focus on this so we don't go way off topic ok?

'My faith your faith type argument' has been mentioned several times to me now,which i find strange coz i haven't even mentioned what my religion is.

I'm a Christian who believes also in the philosophy of Buddhism.I agree that if we all became as the monks and lived on the path of full enlightenment it wouldn't be a constructive way of life.But if you're happy to believe without going down that path then life and living can be very fulfilling etc.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 

Hahahahah.....I mention 'My faith your faith type argument' every time so that nobody says that "You're only putting it down because you believe in something else". All my points have been about buddhism on it's own, not comparing it to anything else.

The problem with someone who is just 'happy to believe without going down that path' notwithstanding the fulfilment they may feel, is that according to Buddhism, such a person would not achieve nirvana, just probably be reborn in a better position. To achieve nirvana, they'd have to become a monk (or be born in such a position to become one).



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
"reply to post by jakyll
 

Some Buddhists DO apparently seem to worship Buddha....I dunno about you, but when people sit in a huge group and start chanting "I seek refuge in Buddha" I don't see it as anything other than worship....and this isn't some isolated incident done by only some fringe group of buddhists....

As the OP said, this is not a "my-religion-better-than-your-religion" thread, but there are a sufficient number of things I find hokey with Buddhism so as not to accept it as a whole- like the concept of the glorification of a whole group/section of the population that lives off alms and begging, which is another thing I that I absolutely disagree with- it's disgraceful for a person who is in perfect health to be begging- which sort of ties in to what the OP said about Buddha being a 'deadbeat' (not that I'd use such a strong word
)."




"""Please Read Response-It is afterall a GREY area.


Buddha means "Awakened" and taking refuge in Buddha means for many -taking refuge
in the awakened state. Fortunately Shakyamuni Buddha taught on many different levels
since he knew that individuals are all on various levels. He broke the path down into "yanas"
Sanskrit for vehicles that transport the practitioner to enlightenment.
Hinayana-Mahayana-Vajrayana
Therefore it depends on what level you are on as to what your interpretation of "Taking
refuge in Buddha" means. Certainly to some it means worship but at the higher levels it means
taking refuge in the Buddha Nature that is within each being. Just as in the lower levels of Buddhism-external rules are applied such as not drinking alcohol but at the higher levels where an individual can discipline their behavior and not become addicts-they can drink alcohol.
And worship and prostrations can be antidotes to the pride of ego. So they do have a way of
helping clear obscurations to open a practitioner to hearing the Dharma.

Regarding begging for alms-you are right it is an Eastern cultural phenomena that does not
translate well in the West. Asians are actually quite happy to support monks and nuns in the East as they see it as a way of accumulating good karma. And it is not easy to be a monk or a nun-there are dozens of vows regarding no sex, no alcohol, no gossiping , practice schedules that make one rise with the dawn which cuts into partying. And the whole noble eightfold path. Fakers and deadbeats who are looking for handouts will be surprised at the rigorous schedule of some monasteries and flee. The monastic system is geared to get the cream that may rise to the top, the cream being great meditators and yogis who may well reach nirvana.
When you meditate a lot like many monks and nuns do then you do not need a lot to survive on as there is very little heavy lifting. It's doubtful that Begging for alms will be acceptable any time soon in the west-but it would cut the greed, pride and ego of some Wall Street people who
could learn that money doesn't necessarily create happiness.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join