1

Of course, after getting enlightened, One is free from worry: now the person is in higher dimension and is always happy, as he knows how perfect everything is.

But still Buddha's family was there; I mean, wasn't his family his responsibility?

I remember when the Buddha came back to the palace and met his wife: she asked, "just tell me, if it was possible to get enlightenment in the palace."

How necessary is it to leave our families to practice, and if it is not necessary why didn't Buddha just come back? I always feel sad when I think about Siddhārtha Gautama's wife Yashodhara.

If one is enlightened, he can not hurt anyone feelings: but Buddha hurt Yashodhara's feelings?

I know I am incorrect somewhere, because after all He was enlightened, so he can not take wrong decision.

2

But still Buddha's family was there; I mean, wasn't his family his responsibility?

Yes.

I remember when the Buddha came back to the palace and met his wife: she asked, "just tell me, if it was possible to get enlightenment in the palace."

You remember?

How necessary is it to leave our families to practice, and if it is not necessary why didn't Buddha just come back? I always feel sad when I think about Siddhārtha Gautama's wife Yashodhara.

Gautama had this urge to find out the meaning of this life and suffering, and that was his ONLY goal. He wanted to leave so he could concentrate on that. I am going to quote Chuck Palahniuk here -If you want to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs. This is the SAME with any other goal. You have to make some sacrifices.

If one is enlightened, he can not hurt anyone feelings: but Buddha hurt Yashodhara's feelings?

Cannot hurt any feelings? That doesn't make any sense. Feelings are for the person who is at the receiving end. Not for the Buddha. Have you heard of the saying "truth is bitter"? Bitter is a feeling that we experience because of our subjective minds.

I know I am incorrect somewhere, because after all He was enlightened, so he can not take wrong decision.

What's your point? There is NO SUCH THING as right decision and wrong decision. It purely depends on the context of the situation. If Gautama wants the answer he is seeking, then he has to leave the family. Period. It is NOT WRONG. He did it because he was yearning for it. It cannot happen to you or me, because we don't have the guts to sacrifice and drop everything that doesn't matter and go towards our goal. If Gautama wanted to rule the world or a kingdom, he would have taken different actions. Actions are according to the goal and the situation. Don't think in terms of marriage/divorce law or morality here.

I also want to add finally that, to go for Nirvana is definitely a selfish matter. If I want to find out what it is, it is because it is MY DESIRE to find out. Without Desire, you cannot live, breathe, feel or do anything. It is a desire to find out about life that Gautama went forth with. And whether you like it or not, it is selfish. And why not be selfish about this? Yes you will hurt some feelings, but like I said, you cannot have everything, you have to sacrifice.

  • 1
    well that is a rude answer, but its kind of true as well, Now plz don't say there is NO SUCH THING. – Rishi Feb 20 '17 at 3:51
1

Why Buddha was not worried about his family after enlightenment?

There's a section titled "Celibacy versus Responsibility" towards the end of this article, A Happy Married Life.

Here are some excerpts:

His sacrifice is considered all the more noble because he set aside his personal needs and desires in order to serve all of mankind for all time.

Had he remained in the royal palace, his service would have been confined to only his own family or his kingdom.

One of the Buddha's earliest tasks after gaining his Enlightenment was to return to his palace to enlighten the members of his family. In fact, when his young son, Rahula asked the Buddha for his inheritance, the Buddha said that Rahula was heir to the richest wealth, the treasure of the Dhamma. In this way, the Buddha served his family, and he paved the way for their salvation, peace and happiness.

Another important fact was that the Buddha knew that his wife and son would not starve in his absence. During the time of the Buddha it was considered quite normal and honorable for a young man to retire from the life of a householder. Other members of the family would willingly look after his dependents. When he gained his enlightenment, he was able to give them something no other father could give — the freedom from slavery to attachment.

In summary:

  • He did it for everyone, not only his family
  • The members of his family, too, were subject to illness, old age, and death. If he had continued his life as a prince or worldly ruler, he would not have found how to liberate them from that.

How necessary is it to leave our families to practice

Is it hard to generalize? It's a choice, isn't it? A choice which has consequences. It's not "necessary", for example you don't have to be good and kind ... but intentional action has consequences.

And in some countries, I've read that most men do both, i.e. they leave their families temporarily (to live as monks) and (after disrobing) return to live with their families.

Buddhism doesn't seem to me to be anti-marriage. If I remember correctly, some of the rules in the Vinaya are motivated towards not breaking up families.

Look at the introduction though:

"If a man can find a suitable and understanding wife and a woman can find a suitable and understanding husband, both are fortunate indeed."

It may be that practice is necessary in order to be suitable and understanding.

Also everyone must "leave their families" eventually (i.e. people die).

If one is enlightened, he can not hurt anyone feelings

If one is not enlightened, then I think that one may tend to be ruled by feelings: your own feelings, your wife's feelings, your mother's feelings, your children's and friends' and so on.

1

But still Buddha's family was there; I mean, wasn't his family his responsibility?

In the Buddha's time families lived in clans or extended families. The Buddha's family was very wealthy and Yashodhara was fully provided for.

Also, it is highly probable Gotama rarely (if ever) had sex with Yashodhara because the suttas seem to depict Gotama as childless & having lost interest in sensuality (AN 3.39; MN 75) while he lived in his three palaces.

While rarely hypothesized in Buddhism, it is highly likely, after 12 years of childless marriage, Gotama had sex with Yashodhara to have a son at the request of his father. This is because as soon as Gotama had a son, he left home.

Contrary to the legends that say Gotama left home secretly, the suttas (e.g. MN 26) state Gotama left home seeing the tears of his parents stream down their face. Therefore, it seems Gotama possibly made a deal with his family, if he bore an heir to the throne, he could leave home.

I remember when the Buddha came back to the palace and met his wife: she asked, "just tell me, if it was possible to get enlightenment in the palace."

That the Buddha returned home showed he cared about his family. The Buddha's son became an arahant and supposedly also Yashodhara, who is mentioned in the suttas with another name. Therefore, the Buddha gave them the greatest gift.

How necessary is it to leave our families to practice, and if it is not necessary why didn't Buddha just come back? I always feel sad when I think about Siddhārtha Gautama's wife Yashodhara.

It is not necessary to leave your family permanently but if you want to practise very deeply you might have to leave them for many months and give up sex for a time.

If one is enlightened, he can not hurt anyone feelings: but Buddha hurt Yashodhara's feelings?

Yashodhara's feelings were her own kamma. The Buddha did not hurt her. If she was hurt, she hurt herself.

In the Buddha's time, I imagine women busied themselves with children & performing activities with other women. I imagine is was not the same as today, where husbands & wives live in what is called a 'nuclear family'.

I know I am incorrect somewhere, because after all He was enlightened, so he can not take wrong decision.

When Gotama left home, he was not enlightened. However, fortunately, his leaving home ended being the right decision since he provided salvation to many people.

  • I don't think AN3.39 depicts him as "uninterested in sensuality while he lived in his three palaces". Which suttas were you thinking of? – ChrisW Feb 17 '17 at 20:03
  • AN 3.39 would point to loss of desire for sensual pleasure. I was thinking more of MN 75, however the translation is not so clear, when it refers to "on a later occasion". suttacentral.net/en/mn75 I recall reading a translation from the Thai years ago, which sounded like the "later occasion" was while living in the palace. – Dhammadhatu Feb 18 '17 at 0:12
  • @Dhammadhatu You just like the possibility that all this is true. Which is fine, but please try removing your biases. – esh Feb 18 '17 at 3:01
0

@Rishi… some of the individuals who were close to Buddha, had been also very closely related in numerous past lifetimes. Yasodhara has been his wife in many a past life times. Then they were all reborn at the time of Buddha for the very last time and they all became Arahants (Enlightened) putting an end to this unending samsara. So all of these events, and lievs of these people were extra-ordinary. That is why Samma Sambuddha is called ‘Asama Sama’, i.e. incomparable with any other being but can be compared only to other Samma Sambuddhas (six in the last 91 Kalpas). So we cannot compare those life events with any other. Do you know that on the day of birth, the Buddha-to-be, the child walked seven paces towards the north direction and he raised his right arm, pointing his index finger to the sky and recited a stanza:

“Aggō hamasmi lōkassa (I am the foremost to this world)
Jeththō hamasmi lōkassa (I am the eldest to this world)
Setthō hamasmia lōkassa (I am the supreme to this world)
Ayamantimā jāti, natthi dāni punabbhavō (This is my last birth; I do not have rebirth)”

When the prince reached the age of sixteen, King Suddhodana, his father, arranged for him to be married to his cousin, a charming princess Yasodhara, who was the daughter of Suprabuddha, Lord of Koliya castle and a brother of the late Queen Maya. At the age of 29, stirred by deep reflection on the hard realities of life in seeing the 4 signs, he wanted to understand the truth of suffering and find the way to end that suffering. He knew that it would be impossible to search for an abstract truth, living this worldly life of attachment to pleasures, and decided to renounce his princely life of luxury, pleasures, attachment to his dear Princess Yasodara and the new born son Rahula, and left the Palace to become an ascetic. He saw the birth of the child as a hinderance. Buddha named his son "Rahula," meaning "chain" or "hindrance.” Thus, while still in the prime of life, he cut off his hair and beard, put on the saffron robe, and entered upon the homeless life of renunciation, seeking a way to release from the round of repeated birth, old age, and death.

The issues that you highlighted, @Rishi.., does not affect a Buddha / Buddha-to-be. He has this noble quality Akampita. It means unshaken; calm; resolute; Also the Buddha radiate metta equally towards his adversary Devadatta, Yasodhara his wife, and Patacara the demented woman, his royal father King Suddhodana and Sopaka the humble low-caste youth.

Earlier I mentioned that the closest loved ones all became Arahants (Enlightened). But it was not so. King Suppabuddha and his son Devadatta went to Hell. King Suppabuddha was the father of Devadatta and father-in-law of Prince Siddhattha. The king was very antagonistic to the Buddha for two reasons: first, because Prince Siddhattha had left his daughter Yasodhara to renounce the world; and second, because his son Devadatta had come to regard him as his arch enemy. He once blocked the Buddha's path and was dead within seven days – a very interesting story (check it out) – as no one can escape the effects of such evil kamma.

Shortly after Buddhahood, his father the King invited the Buddha and the Sangha to his palace with due respect. Having accepted the invitation with compassion, the Buddha visited the palace on the following day with the Arahants and accepted the alms. The Buddha with so much compassion looked around and noticed that one person was not in the hall. It was not because she was proud that she did not come down to see the Buddha that day. It was because her grief was too much. Thus, the Buddha walked up to the place towhere she was. He moved the flimsy curtain aside while standing at the door and saw that she was asleep.

Yasodhara led a very pios life since the day that her husband left the house. From the day she heard that the Prince had become a recluse, Princess Yashodara gave up all her jewellery. She rejected all fine clothes. She took food only in the morning hours after hearing that the Prince does the same. She slept on the floor on a mat.

When the Buddha called her “Dear Yasodhara!” she heard the voice which she had not heard for seven long years. She woke up startled, raised her head and looked at the door. All this time, she remembered the Prince in royal attire. But whom she saw now was a serene, calm, monk in a saffron robe. Her sorrow overtook her. She could not believe that instead of her loving husband that she remembered, she is seeing Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha. She dashed towards the Buddha crying in great pain, dropped herself at the feet of the Buddha, embraced the feet, and started to cry.

The Buddha watched all this with a very calm and serene mind. Princess Yasodhara wailed until her sorrow diminished. Finally, she came to her senses and remembered she was embracing the feet of the exalted Buddha. Then, she felt tremendous respect towards the Buddha and stepped back. It was at that time that the Buddha told a past incident that even in her previous lives Princess Yasodhara had followed Prince Siddhartha with as much love as in this life.

0

Buddha was silent when his wife asked about need to move away from family for enlightenment. It was just Buddha's desire for enlightenment that he moved out. Remember he was not Buddha but Sidhartha Gautam. If you ask any enlightened soul whether it is required to move away from family the answer is 'no' except is some special cases. It is basic human nature to escape and be alone to solve a problem because it gives you a focus. But I think Buddha would have done it inside palace too. He was an inner scientist and would have found out ways living with his wife, parents and rest of the clan. There is not much to think about the incident of Buddha running away. It is of no consequence. Once the fire is lit it only spreads.

A Buddha knows that all relationships are illusions. He could see himself connected to the whole. Lets suppose you have an experience where every object whether dead or alive in the world is connected to a single source and derive its existence from that source will you differentiate between two persons or even objects. Everything and everyone will become sacred. Budha discovered that there is a law (Dhamma) which makes everything work in unison so why would he be worried?

0

I think yours is a good question. It seems to me that what I call "brinkmanship Buddhism" or Bodhisattva Buddhism and generally the lay paths see this question as being an issue since it is in part our non-enlightenment that encourages us to form human bonds and look after our "dependants."

For instance, it would all be very well if all sentient beings should become enlightened, then everyone would share their time and wealth with every one else who needs it, but if one married person say, should become enlightened what becomes of that persons dependants? What will happen if the enlightened one realises that all clinging is illusion and that the whole world are dependants? So, perhaps, it is partly for this reason that some more modern schools of Buddhism recommend Bodhisattvas who get close to enlightenment, to the brink of enlightenment, but do not quite because society is supported by our lack of it. In the case of Gautama, he could leave his wife in one of his palaces so it was not really an issue.

So perhaps for the time being it is okay to head for the brink, of for glimpses. Above all, however, this is my excuses for not doing more meditation!

0

I think yours is an important question. It seems to me that what I call "brinkmanship Buddhism" or Bodhisattva Buddhism and generally the lay paths see this question as being a very real issue since it is in part our non-enlightenment that encourages us to form human bonds and look after our legal dependants. It would all be very well if all sentient beings should become enlightened, then everyone would share their time and wealth, but if one married person say should become enlightened what becomes of that person's dependants? What will happen if the enlightened person realises that all clinging is illusion, and that the whole world are 'dependants'?

The Buddha had palaces so his wife was well looked after. But for the rest of us, enlightenment is just a little fraught! What if I should get there! What would become of my wife and children?

But, then this is mainly for me just an excuse to do less meditation!

I am reminded of Christ's last words on the cross. If you are going leave the world of illusion, as a messiah or mystic, it may be important to have 1) No family or 2) Palaces or 3) Disciples.

  • Christ said: Matthew 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. – Dhammadhatu Mar 3 '17 at 1:43
0

Rishi, and those interested

- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -

Family responsibility is a very high one, a "duty" and in fullfilling it, Buddha had point such deeds having done as one of the highest protection, highest blessings:

Support for one's parents, assistance to one's wife and children, consistency in one's work: This is the highest protection.

Giving, living in rectitude, assistance to one's relatives, deeds that are blameless: This is the highest protection.

Maha-mangala Sutta: Protection

Family, aside of blood relation, should be seen as the group of supporters, those one is in certain ways bound for ones benefit and voluntary life-support. Of with one, importand to know, should one not be stingy in share access for others to certain benefits. Otherwise one is incapable to reach highee stages of existances, at the same time, ingratitude is causes the same obstacle.

"Without abandoning these five qualities, one is incapable of entering & remaining in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana; incapable of realizing the fruit of stream-entry... the fruit of once-returning... the fruit of non-returning... arahantship. Which five? Stinginess as to one's monastery [lodgings], stinginess as to one's family [of supporters], stinginess as to one's gains, stinginess as to one's status, and ingratitude. Without abandoning these five qualities, one is incapable of entering & remaining in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana; one is incapable realizing the fruit of stream-entry... the fruit of once-returning... the fruit of non-returning... arahantship.

"With the abandoning of these five qualities, one is capable of entering & remaining in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana; capable of realizing the fruit of stream-entry... the fruit of once-returning... the fruit of non-returning... arahantship..."

MACCHARIYA SUTTA — STINGINESS (6)

So there semms to be a conflict also in the Buddhas teaching on this matter. "Pay debt, in ways of grateful acts and at the same time, share and let go of the 'family'?" But actually it isn't, if looking on it deeper.

So leaving the blood related family a little in regard, the family meant on primarly level, one migh see that friends, collegs groups of people around ones "livestyle", be it a good, or a bad, are often, from a personal view, in dependency what one individuall sees a benefical and joy-supporting, higher regarded as blood-family.

If such a non-blood-related family, father, mother... supports in just ways of sensual pleasures, such higher regard is wrong. The lowest and higherst kind of support can be seen as in:

  • (1) harmful (for one self and other) ways of providing enjoyment in sensuallity and the four prerequisites: regarding fools as relatives and family, people providing each other with drugs, poisions, using means like lying, taking what is not given, as means to come to the desired objects of enjoyment. A wandering on in the realms of animals, hungry ghosts and hell, with short visits in good realms.(This group, is by most being regarded as the most benefical, and therefore most binding)

  • (2) harmless ways of providing enjoyment in sensuality and the four prerequisites: this is the good family in the world, with it common lose and gain, wandering on inpleasant ways, for life like humans and devas. Providing by means of harmlessness and rightous gains by proper sacrifies.

  • (3) providing enjoyment without much special enjoyment but the four requisites (food, cloth, shelter, medicine): by proper, harmless and sacrify of own. This is where all beings parents always fall under. Short, long... starting by being received and provided in a womb. A/the family that leaves open all ways, does not bind in certain direction of ones own tendency and intent. Including also support in regard a basic skills and knowledge in the world. This family is regarded as gods.

  • (4) heavenly relation, providing with livelihood beyond material food and needs by harmless means. The relation with teacher, Devas and gods, exchanging and sharing virtues above ordinary realms. This is the highest family-relation within the world. So also the duty or responsibility level.

  • (5) relation with the Noble One, providing in the most respons-able way torward the whole family of wordily beings, with the needs of path and the aim of beyond being anyhow related any more: unbond***: This is the direct relation with the Buddhas, the Dhamma and the bondless community of Nobel Ones, Sangha. The highest responsibility, and duty one can fullfil, become part with the aim: "The task is done. The holly live fullfilled. No more further (duties, responsibilities) for the world (and its beings). Free of debt."

So when one considers this levels of families, their positions in regard in responsibility, one, for oneself more or less still to much bound in lower relations, might nevertheless see that taking on higher regard of relations and responsibilities has to be rightous also regarded as such, and will be, of people who are not totally blind. Yet one him/herself might be not able (better willing to go forward) to leave certain levels and step higher in regard. Nevertheless, higher relations, higher taking on of responsibility, will e regarded as praiseworthy, heros of people with basic right view, not to speak of people of integrity: "going forth/forward, is always praised by the wise!"

(Mv.I.7.12) The money-lender saw Yasa sitting there and on seeing him said to him, “Yasa, my son, your mother is lamenting and full of grief. Give your mother her life (back?)!”

...(Mv.I.7.13) Then Yasa looked up at the the Blessed One. Then the Blessed One said to the money-lender, “What do you think, householder: For Yasa, who has seen and known the Dhamma with the knowledge and vision of one in training—just as you have—whose mind, as he reflected on the level (of mind) as he had seen and known it, was through lack of clinging/sustenance released from effluents: Would it be possible for him to revert to the lower life and indulge in sensuality as he did before as a householder?”

“No, lord.”

“Householder, Yasa has seen and known the Dhamma with the knowledge and vision of one in training, just as you have.

“Reflecting on the level (of mind) as he had seen and known it, his mind was, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released from effluents.

“It would be impossible for Yasa to revert to the lower life and indulge in sensuality as he did before as a householder.”

(Mv.I.7.14) [The money-lender:] “Lord, it’s a gain for Yasa, a great gain for Yasa, that his mind is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released from effluents!

“May the Blessed One acquiesce to my meal tomorrow, with Yasa as your attendant monk.”

The Blessed One acquiesced with silence.

Then the money-lender, understanding the Blessed One’s acquiescence, got up from his seat, bowed down to him, circumambulated him, keeping him to his right, and left.

(Mv.I.7.15) Then Yasa, not long after the money-lender had left, said to the Blessed One,

“May I receive the Going-forth in the Blessed One’s presence? May I receive the Acceptance?”

“Come, monk.” Said the Blessed One. “The Dhamma is well-taught. Live the holy life.”

Such was the venerable one’s Acceptance. At that time there were seven arahants in the world.

The Discussion of Going-forth

[My person shell stop here, to visit certain past relatives here for/to give alms, so that they might develope possible, increase, relations of higher kinds, for now, as well: continuing is not sure and not really obligated. Let's see.]

Secular "Buddhist" do not regard relations (upanissaya) and mostly also not the three things wise praisesn "Generosity (dāna), assistance for father and mother (eg. relativesb sīla), going forth (*bhāvana), even using the labels for outsider (people who have no relation with the Noble ones, even by outwardly fullfilling of duties to them: tending and possible even already outcasts based on their elements of views).

(Kind of) Persons (whom one tends to, personality), dwelling (country, places), weather (clima), food (that is clinged on, prefered), among with other Dhammas, are matters of upanissayapaccayena, strong relation cause. As the Buddha pointed out is that realatives in tendency common meet each other again and again, gather together, and it is seldom that beings strive for higher relationship, giving nurishment and food, paccaya (strong causes) for such, by promted deeds (merely deliberated; not just unpromted, merely accidentally).

If one is blessed - see the lower highest blessings in regard of condition/relation in the Mangala Sutta "living among upright people/rigthous countries", one will propable learn outwardly proper regards of what is worthy to nurish by giving respect (again: generosity, fullfilling duties of releations and going forth). If born amoung "Brahmas" or people without relation to good relations, living in a strong devotion to unrightous individual lack of relation, in a lost generation, it's very, very seldom to come or to even meet consciously higher relations and requires strong effort to possible do not lose last upanissaya with people of integrity: finding at least strong relation with the lowest family (see above (1)).

So every contact with good families, even noble, is very auspicious. Like meeting the heavenly messangers is seldom (bodywitnessing on the level of mind: oldage, sickness, death, Samana/recluse) and with it the truth of relations getting disenchantment to wordily ones (1-4) and seeing that all other relatives live on the pain of their or other relatives. Mother killing previous mother for here child, cild kills previous child for fullfilling wordily duties to its mother...

Let my person provide here a personal story of meeting once again heaveny messangers in this existence:

By Devas guided and protected, my person once left the palace another time. While sitting on the bank of the Mekong in as so called very poor but actually most rich country, Kampochea (Abundance by own work - or non by lack of it), especially in regard of the seven real treasures, and reflecting a blessed life and it's inconstancy, kamboja (kamma paccaya), having seen the relation of masters and slaves already. Then a beggar child, about 4 years, took on the generouse abounded recycling cans and bottles by the hotel owner. No long after that a begging woman, with a baby beated off the beggar child to get the "treasures". At this moment it was clear to me, either if subtile or platant, beings of wordily relations kill each other for the sake of being related and so directly knowing that the strive for relation or responsibility is higher then any other reletion since it does not take side in a battle and benefits then all of the past relatives, all being, whether regarded as own or not own. This was when my person got reminded by meeting the heavingly messangers another time in this existence.

When one has a relation, one has a contract, spoken or unspoken. One holds a promis when holding a relation. Breaking a promise, a contract, is generally breaking precepts, good conduct. But in cases where one ends a contract, a relation, even with disagreement or the contract partner, for the sake of leaving a lower relation to a higher, it might sake the world caused by breaking out of Samsara.

In short: So if one breaks up a relation for other kinds of wordily relations, does not "care" of responsibility, still nurishing on it, is of cause wrong. Not to speak from breaking up responsibility and relation when going into lower life, relations, for its sake. But if one "leaves« and abounds responsibility, outwardly and inwardly, on wordly levels, in that way showing responsibility an compassion for the sake of all beings, such is more than praise worthy. Now of course not easy to see, to be used to, not to speak of done. A person having even entered the stream, has actually left the direct relation to the family of the Noble One and also the strive after it is a righteous reason to give up certain from other demanted duties, for the sake of higher benefit even for them.

That is especially not easy if near blood relatives are actually relatives of the Devas, when one is related, used to dwell with wives, children, friends of the family of Devas, to leave even parents, wives and chikds, friends, co-worker, assistants and slaves... and it's not so that all Devas, this days, understand.

Under all breaking up of responsibilities of wordily realation, only in regard of the parents, the Buddha gave after request (by Ven. Ananda) to obligation to ask for leave, since a leave of high responsibility might give problems for the estimate of the conventional Sangha.

Monks, especially in regard of possession of the Sangha, are even restricted to show responsibility of wordily value, so to support laypeople, those not after the holly life, on a ideal level, wordilings with material support. Accept to those after the holy life, with tendency to higher conduct and mother and father, a Bhikkhu is not given to share usuall support. A topic that is actually broad and deep connected with corrution in maintaining wordily relations, a serious fault (Sg.13)

In regard of Sangha-property, the convential family of monks has (had) only with two fellow, related religions (bonds, famalies) certain possibilities and duties to take on responsibility: that is the Bhikkhuni-community and their Samaneras, see also duties of teacher and disciples: Vatta Khandhaka: Collection of Duties.

The overview of duties of those having gone forth are topics of:

  • Incoming Bhikkhus' Duties
  • Resident Bhikkhus' Duties
  • Departing Bhikkhus' Duties
  • The Duties in Giving "approve" (of good deeds: Anumodana)
  • Refectory Duties
  • The Duties for Bhikkhus Going for Alms
  • The Duties of Bhikkhus Living in the Wilderness
  • Lodging Duties
  • Toilet Duties
  • Pupils' Duties
  • Mentors' Duties

All of course "dutiesk in reagard of the Holly Life and for Nibbanas sake, the strive for it as highest underlying responsibility.

There is no responsibility in regard of lay people, aside of certain conducts of "foreign - policy" for the sake of estimation of the Sangha at large, by Bhikkhus.

The gift of teaching the Dhamma is a individual total voluntary act of goodness (if not made out of corruption and the sake of livelihood and requisits: such is not allowed).

Further readings:

these three persons are evident in the world. What three? Bhikkhus, there is a person that should not be associated, there is one that should be associated and there is another that should be honoured and revered and associated.

"Who is the person that should not be associated? Bhikkhus, a certain person is below par in virtues, concentration and wisdom. Such should not be associated unless out of sympathy and compassion.

Not consorting with fools, consorting with the wise, paying homage to those worthy of homage: This is the highest protection.

Living in a civilized land, having made merit in the past, directing oneself rightly: This is the highest protection.

Useful synonymous of realation/-ship/family: ñāta, kāya, saṅghaṃ, upanissāya, guṇā, nissāya, supporters, benefactors, ...

Anumodana/dedication of the merits (a usual dedication when having made a gift.)

ឥទំ វោ ទានំ ញាតីនំ ហោតុ សុខិតា ហោន្តុ ញាតយោ

Īdaṃ vo dānaṃ ñātīnaṃ hotu sukhitā hontu ñātayo!

May this sacrifies be for (my) relatives, may (my) relatives develope happiness with it!

Dedicated and in responsibility for the family of the Noble One and their followers, for the current blood/"own" family, for the family of all beings.

That is the why the Dhamma, and proper responsibility in regard of relation, is pleasant at itjs beginning, in the middle an the end.

It's possible to become a relativ of, a khema, step by step!


[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

0

Yashodhara could be seeing manifestation of the Buddha and this is enough to keep Yashodhara satisfied.

  • Can you add a sutta reference? – Lanka Oct 25 '17 at 15:58
  • Sorry no reference, I'm basing on logical thinking. If I were to be Yashodhara, and I have personally seen the Buddha, I'm already very very satisfied and will request for the teachings from him, so that I won't suffer in future lives. – tutu Oct 26 '17 at 15:19

protected by Lanka Oct 25 '17 at 13:34

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.