Two philosophers I consider important in shaping my way of thinking are Buddha and Socrates. Recently, Wittgenstein too impressed me, but his influence will be a little lower than that of these two in my life.
In primary school, I learnt about the Socratic Method from a three-page essay on life and teaching of Socrates. Summing up in one line what I understood: “one should ask in order to know and understand any concept thoroughly”. This Kierkegaard later popularized as “De Omnibus Dubitandum Est”. I may discuss more about it some other time.
Reading about Buddha, his sayings and his Jataka Katha (tales) from various story books I understood and remembered one thing. Putting it in one line: “End of expectations is end of sorrow”. କାମନାର ବିନାଶରେ ହିଁ ଦୁଃଖର ବିନାଶ (Odia).
While I was in school I once discussed with my father about different religions. My father liked Jesus Christ because of the compassion and non-violent preaching. His preference was obvious when cited against the Hindu Gods, who killed sinners to clear away sin. I told him why not prefer Buddha. He replied that Buddha left his family for his quest! It felt as if Buddha ran away from his prime responsibilities because of his quest to find the answer for his fear ‘human sorrow and ultimately death’. The rest of the discussion I had with my father is not relevant here.
Though at first I did not want to accept such criticism of Buddha because of my good impression of him, later with my partial knowledge about Buddha, I deduced and accepted that yes he ran away from primary social responsibilities to find answers for his fears. He sounded very selfish really. But, was he really this selfish? It was like criticizing the Hindi movie lovers who realize how much they love another person on their wedding day and then run away leaving all relatives in pain. At least, some of those movie-based relatives might be happy because of the right decision having been finally made by the protagonist ensuring his hopefully long-term happiness. Buddha came in bad light by leaving a wife along with a newly born baby. Divorce and single parent issues are difficult and seen negatively in the society I grew up in. I understand how badly such actions can affect people involved. Could not Buddha leave any earlier? Why punish a woman and a child for one’s own fancy? Buddha stayed until then because of his father. Buddha’s father first got him married thinking that his madness will reduce after it (so typical Hindi movie like :p). Since Buddha did not leave his mad desire to leave, his father allowed him to leave the palace only after Buddha became a father. He hoped that the lure of the child could have kept him home. Whatever… Though I got all this about Buddha from Osamu Tezuka, I am not sure if such intentions and conversations really took place in Buddha’s life. However, the doubt on Buddha’s intentions is cleared, and he is established as a reasonable man with this. It is important to find a preacher’s action as reasonable in order to follow him. Yes, one may choose to pardon Buddha for his early decisions as being immature and follow his sayings after enlightenment as appropriate. Alternatively, one may even consider that leaving the family was a collateral damage in the process of achieving the greater goal of enlightenment and spreading the knowledge obtained in society.
Buddha’s family could pardon him, but I am not yet fully convinced about what takes precedence. Maybe I am still not mature enough for it. Yes, when he was unhappy living with his fear, he could not have given his best to his family, and hence he chose to take up the quest. Maybe his family understood it and let him be. Can a son really pardon a father who left him immediately after his birth? Can the son accept the father again in the form he returns after years? The feeling/ experience that the departure of his father was the reason behind many miseries he had to face, can make the action of pardoning more difficult. However, the problem here is with ascribing reason and ex-post theorizing, which is like Schrödinger’s cat. When the box is opened the cat is dead, which in this case means that the son faced misery. And once the box is opened, we cannot ever clearly tell what was the state of the cat when the box was closed i.e. can we really pin everything on the father’s departure. Maybe it was in the son’s fate, and he would have suffered whether or not his father stayed with him! Even so, he definitely lacked his father’s love and guidance. For which the father is to be blamed for sure. Hence Buddha should be pronounced guilty. Again, nobody can guarantee that he would have got his father’s attention and love, when his father chose to stay with him. What if his father died instead of leaving him for a greater cause? Furthermore, pinning it on fate erases the distinction between good and bad. The father in this case need not feel guilty for his son’s miseries since it was after all the son’s fate! Hence, I guess good and bad are socially defined.
When the discussion went towards fate in the discussion above, it did not mean rejection of reason. Instead, it is a limitation of reasoning here. I strongly believe that human beings keep looking for reasons and try to be reasonable. Our emotions make us strive to be responsible and accountable. These make the social sense of good & bad and thus legitimacy be established through reason. However, in case of unavailability of information scope of reasoning is limited. At best one can assign probability/chance value to reason behind an action rather than be sure about a particular reason behind an action.
Yeah, It is enough analysis of this action by young Buddha! Maybe I can just accept what he preached and the line I remember from his sayings, rather than being stuck with this analysis. Still, the analysis cleared few cobwebs on my ideas about fate, action, good/bad and reason. I am not sure about you.
PS: As usual, please let me know about my grammatical mistakes. Do let me know of factual mistakes too if you find any. Feel free to comment on any opinion provided here.
