[Buddha-l] Re: Men and women of good family

[Vicente Gonzalez]

jkirk wrote in Re: [Buddha-l] Yogi with a cell phone:

> If the Buddha was considered then, as ordinary Indians today
> consider and address  powerful patrons/saviors/helpers--as
> "Maa-Baap", Mother-Father--perhaps this  usage is as ancient as the
> texts. If it had been common in those days, it  would serve to solve
> the householder/monk ethical conflicts just noted, by  transcending
> the householder  ethics level in favor of the sangha vows level, by
> turning the Buddha into a  parent --as Catholics do when they
> address a priest as Father. 

sorry, my messages are long because actually I'm engaged in this
matter.

What you writes sounds quite well as another possibility to understand
the use of "good family". Popular uses in language sometimes are so
old that nobody remember them, and some authors frequently use this to
justify the roots of words meanings.

In fact, your argument of that use in ancient times can explain very
well the case of Buddha and in reverse direction that of Angulimala.
Angulimala was forced by his guru to cut 1000 fingers, and he killed
many people to satisfy his master. He become an executor obeying
orders in a blind way, then spreading terror.
Btw, he is a perfect example that we should not loose the compassion
by terrorists, because Angulimala was in fact a pure executor; a
terrorist. His history shows how the mind of an executor also can
change and reaching Nirvana with the help of Buddha. It is something
that many people forgot in my uncivilized country, where many people
confuse justice with revenge so quickly. 

Specially interesting about Angulimala episode are the commentaries
of Buddhadasa Bikkhu. He told that we shouldn't confuse the Angulimala
history with a simple moral conversion. Angulimala is not seeking
for pardon. When Buddha said "I'm stopped... Angulimala, Can you
stopped?", Buddhadasa explain how this "stop" is the cease of
a blind state of the mind, not a simple moral conversion. Morality
will appear after that cease.

Filial piety of Angulimala for his bad master become dangerous. And
also we can see the same in reference to children for bad parents, or
soldiers by his bad government. In these cases, human beings can
lose their freedom experiencing an strong dukkha.

There is an starting contradiction in Buddhism in the advice of filial
piety and the need of leaving the home.  As we know, same Buddha leave
his home in the night and without the approval of his father. Although
later we see him teaching the seek of this approval.

There is no doubt of a kammic debt with masters, State, and family,
By the simple evidence that they take care of us in different grades
and we are alive. However, I wonder about the use of filial piety
without limits justified by that.
Angulimala and the Chinese Heaven's law assumed by Chinese Buddhism
can be an starting point to explain cases of the end of filial piety
for bad masters or rulers. But I miss in Buddhism some history about
bad family to see how this point was managed by those early Buddhists.

Even in ancient times, many times the kammic debt belongs to the
mother in a lonely way. Today it is more clear when even many woman
are fertilized without the need of a man.
Other times the parents leave the children to other family who
sustain him. Other times, parents are a nightmare for the
children...In short, in any time there are many occasions in where
this kammic debts are not enough to explain the filial piety according
that excessive use without showing exceptions as happen with masters
and rulers.

Until now I cannot find nothing. Same problem in Mahayana sources.
I wonder if the strong need of filial piety in families as a basis of
those ancient societies maybe converted this matter in a complete
taboo.

Nobody knows some example?. I would be very grateful to read any idea.


best regards,