Thoughts I've thunk while sippin' at a cup of tea and reading something provoking, often get dropped here for the benefit of humanity and my own hubris.
Except where otherwise noted, all original content is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.
See details.
This morning on the bus, I started reading an article from Tricycle (Summer 2002) called, "What Name did Buddha Give His Son?" Where a father asks his daughter that question. The girl answered, "Get-in-the-way." (The correct answer was hinderance, but that was close enough). He goes on to say:
The bald fact of the matter is that children do get in the way of monastic practice. How could it be otherwise? Monastic practice must be done with single-minded devotion. Parenting is the same. Those people who think you can have both, it seems to me, must either not be very good parents or not very good monks—or possibly both. That is why the Buddha abandoned his son. It just doesn't work.
The author's comment was that while he practiced as a monk for a few years, he can't anymore. But he wouldn't want to because he is on another path … the path of parenting.
For the last couple of years, I have entertained the fantasy wish that when my family is raised and I'm finished with this 9-to-5, that I will be able to devote most of my time to my practice … whatever that will happen to be at that time. This family-work-first, spiritual-persuit-second is the typical order of life in places like India, but in America it is often reversed.
The obvious bald fact from my perspective is this author "chose" to be a monk, and then "chose" to be a parent. I have made similar choices, and I have made a committment to raise my daughter. I've made a committment to my . Sometime I will get to dedicate a full-time committment to my practice (I love that term), but right now, I will just have to intersperse the two.
And I have come across the idea that maybe children actually help in that regard. I mean, if the goal here is to train the mind to ignore distractions and delusions, what bigger distraction and shatterer of delusions can there be but a baby just learning to walk?
© 2002-2005, Howard Abrams • Except where otherwise noted, all original content is licensed under a Creative Commons License (see details).
I think you’re absolutely right that children are a step towards, rather than away. The degree of selflessness necessary for spiritual growth seems out of reach for those without children. Selflessness comes naturally to a parent.
Comment posted on Thursday, 1 August 2002Hi bud!
Just wanted you to know how much I love your web site, you and all you are. And thank’s for helping Chase in his school work. I was talking to Deon this morning and I ask him if he had been to your site. He started telling me about your link to “Big myth”, how much he enyjoyed it and he had two kids go over it in detail.
Which reminded me of how I gave it to Chase as one of his assignments for his schoolwork. I’m having his write down each god of each myth. I love the idea of being able to see more of the world than just your culture, your parents background. How can anyone look at all those wild and varied beliefs and say only one is “true”?
One thought I had when I was reading the comments from Marisa about selflessness. I of course have a strong concept and it’s contary to what most christians have. Maybe you have some insights that will clairfy my thinking…
Some questions..When you look into Flora’s face, hold her in your arms, are your feelings about how much you’re giving? I’m offended that people are so blind as to think I’m not getting anything out of loving my son, sons, daughters. Chase isn’t interested in letting me hold him and that’s probable a good idea as I’d want to hold and kiss him far too much for his own good. Hell, I’d pay good money if he’d just let me hold him for a few minutes each day. Anyway my point is…selflessness is at best a big lie and one that sets up some interesting conflicts in our lives. Mother Teresa wasn’t selfless, she was a Nun who had given herself to Christ and to the care of the sick and poor. Why? Because her god said to, and if she did her reward was promised in heaven.
Thinking we know what’s best for individuals places us in position of “playing god”, “do gooders” and playing god is risky business.
This is more than a brief statement and I better get out before I bury myself completely.
Thanks again, love dan
Comment posted on Thursday, 29 August 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|