Just finished two books on the Buddha.
One was “A spoke in the wheel” by Amita Kanekar and the other “Buddha “ by Karen Armstrong.
Both were good. But I liked the one by kanekar better. Her prose is almost cryptic and powerful, and you need to re-read at times to understand full import.
Armstrong tends to get too verbose at times. Can’t blame her really…. she is trying to make sense of the metaphysical and its always better to hide your ignorance behind verbosity.
Kanekar on the other hand makes no pretense and she aims at something very simple. A teacher of architectural history and comparative mythology, she, after reading all works available on the Buddha and being privy(as a teacher of history) to the life and times of the era when Buddha was alive, attempts to re-create a fictional life account of Buddha as his life could have been.
And its an engrossing read ,I for one, got lost in the book and was transported back in time for sure.
Buddha in his youth is shown as an extremely conscientious and sensitive person who turns out to be a misfit. Portrayed as a mediocre, he doesn’t really excel in martial skills and is disinterested in learning his princely duties. In the myth about Buddha ,as brought out by Armstrong, he is said to have been completely shielded from reality and led a life of luxury, till one day he sees misery and sorrow (death, sickness etc) and realizes the futility of it all and proceeds to abandon his life and heads to the jungle in search of answers.
In all likelihood kanekar’s version is probably closer to the truth.
But that’s just semantics.
What’s actually interesting is the journey of the Buddha to enlightenment. Both kanekar and Armstrong are on the same wicket when they bring out what a radical he was and how he questioned all conventional wisdom.
Buddha went to all known seers of the day (alara kalama, udakka ramaputta) and subjected himself to severe yogic disciplines in an attempt to find an answer to his quest…… but it eluded him.
Here Buddha displayed his radical and questioning intellect.
Of course, as the Buddha agreed, in the course of his meditations and other yogic disciplines followed, he achieved peace. But he maintained that this was transitory. When he came out of his trance and mingled with people, his old desires, needs and wants came back with renewed vigor.
So how does one get everlasting peace. That’s what he wanted to know. How do you achieve a state of ‘self’ which doesn’t behave like the weather and is stable and unchanging?
Having rejected all schools of thought, Buddha decides to give it a shot himself. He does severe penances and almost starves himself to death and eats his own excrement. But at the end of four years he is successful and achieves enlightenment.
To quote kanekar:
“Buddha sat and thought and thought, till he was satisfied that he had found some answers. Such was his enlightenment”.
Armstrong ,of course gives the colorful myth of the demon Mara and his conversations with Buddha to spice things up.
But Buddha’s message of four noble truths and path to salvation of noble eight fold path is rather mundane .Indeed his ‘life is full of suffering’(noble truth no 1) is downright depressing.
Kanekar is silent on Buddha’s message to the world and just hides behind a few interesting allegorical tales of the Buddha....which is a disappointment.
And Armstrong goes on a hyper drive trying to explain Buddha’s message in vain. Armstrong herself admits that Buddha’s message seems quite unimpressive to a lay individual at first ,but these messages, it seems, are to be understood as a ‘ direct yogic experience’ to realise its full import.
Ya! Right!
What is this state of ‘self realization’ that Buddha achieved?
Buddha himself avoided the answer saying that known sensory perceptions and limitations of language does not permit him to give an answer.
But he states that, once achieved, you lose your individuality and you simply cannot go back to your normal human state. Having seen the ‘truth’ and hence transcended the limitations of existence, he therefore achieved everlasting peace and contentment.
That’s rather unhelpful, isn’t it? I am not evolved enough to understand what he meant.
But how was the Buddha post enlightenment? He lived for almost 45 years post enlightenment and did he ever exhibit any human tendencies of pride, prejudice, pettiness etc.?
Surprisingly , the answer is yes. Armstrong narrates an incident when Buddha’s stepmother tries to be a member of the ‘Sangha’. The Buddha adamantly refuses initially, wanting to keep the ‘Sangha’ a male only preserve.
But relents subsequently, and admits women into the ‘Sangha’ with draconian rules imposed upon them. The women are clearly treated as inferiors ,with rules such as all women to rise in front of male counterparts and that they cannot hold ceremonies on their own etc.
Armstrong hints at the patriarchal nature of the society of the day and how even the Buddha might have been influenced.
So if even the Buddha could have been influenced post his ‘enlightenment ‘, then what does it mean?
You would expect an individual who has ‘crossed over ‘ and achieved ‘enlightenment’, to be free from such mundane pettiness and at the very least advocate something as basic as ‘equality’?
My belief , as the Buddha tried in vain to convince people, is that :
he was just a human being. And you cannot take away basic traits.
He learnt a path to achieve peace. Which subsequent chroniclers called ‘self realization’ and ‘freedom from bondage’ and hence freedom from the 'cycle of rebirths.'
Buddha himself had no time for such abstract questions. He refused to entertain any question pertaining to God, the nature of God, reasons for existence, whether there is rebirth or not etc.
He maintained this was his path, and that this path might not work for everybody. and each one needs to choose his own path.
So which path would appeal to me?
I am not very sure. But the path definitely should require that I submerge myself in whatever the world has to offer and not renounce it.
Because I definitely don’t believe that life is ‘full’ of suffering.
Some suffering.....yes. But not ‘full’.
And if I get reborn because of my sins......I don’t mind.
I look forward to it.
