I guess it doesn't appear in the usual stories. I was also surprised he got married and had a kid about the time he wandered off to be spiritual, it seems which doesn't often seem to be mentioned.
I heard this story a few weeks ago and it made me realize a thing that I dislike in Zen Buddhism, at least the perception of Zen Buddhism I have.
Isn't this way (and surely other ways) of Buddhism not also some "tainted" way of life. For me it looks very Nihilistic. Shouldn't Buddha be a good role-model - so how can he have left wife and kid?
In Buddhism or at least Zen Buddhism I believe there is great emphasis on the concept of non-attachment, you should not cling on to things. You must let go of everything to find your Buddha nature. So it makes sense, that Buddha has left his family to sit under the tree.
But for me this is such a denial of the human nature and thus it feels unnatural, unwise and just like other religions and sects with their doctrines and dogma.
I'm a big "fan" of Robert Sapolsky and his courses of Human Biological Behavioral Evolution.
Buddhism, especially Zen, gets often seen as a God-less, very logical, very humanistic religion. But there are elements, like in any cult. Dogma which would lead to the human race going extinct if everybody would follow it.
I don't believe in Gods but I must admit but I am rather attracted to the (crazy :-) ) Mythology of Asatru, because it feels much more natural and in symbiosis with the human nature to me.
> So it makes sense, that Buddha has left his family to sit under the tree. But for me this is such a denial of the human nature and thus it feels unnatural, unwise and just like other religions and sects with their doctrines and dogma.
The separation was a during his spiritual search. After he attained what he was looking for he reunited with his son.
Sometimes we have to go away to figure things out. After he reached his goal, the Buddha spent the next fifty years surrounded by people whom he taught and counseled.
Let me flip it for you. What about Alexander the great, or other historical figures? Shouldn't he have stayed home with his family instead of starting a senseless war and then dying in India?
How come this double standard is always trotted out against the Buddha, when all these other conquering, massacring guys get away with it?
I thought zen taught that you shouldn't follow the Buddah as if he was a role model, as if he was a religious figure like in other religions.
"Kill the Buddah if you encounter him" might be something to do with it but might be unrelated?
I also remember something about how Buddah can be found in the butchers shop, as if to say "stop looking for him as if he was something outside you, you are doing it wrong." Or about how if you get buddhahood you can be quite comfortable cutting up dead animals (i.e. Buddah is comfortable in nature)
But that might be exactly the problem. This Buddha-Nature, the enlightenment thing, to me honestly is just like the believe in a God in other religions. It is very cult like for me.
I heard there are lot of stories out there of so called Zen Masters who claim to have achieved enlightenment (those according to your example, who can drink alcohol, kill animals for eating them) who get drunk and otherwise act weirdly and it is excused with "well, we cannot understand them, they are enlightened and we not, so we cannot see the wisdom in their actions".
I have not much personal experience with Zen, but heard that this is not so uncommon.
But of course, this doesn't say, that there are personal benefits in meditating, leaving a life without drugs, have a focused mind etc. - but maybe this things are mainly a new, western construct, attached to the base religion of Buddhism.
