|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 10, 2019 16:18:22 GMT -5
No, the point is it's not renunciation if you no longer have desire for something (Buddha's story. At some point there was no struggle between staying and leaving, he just left. {If you're down to one chip, it's easy to go All In}). The renunciation we're talking about here is the physical act of giving up house and family and being a mendicant. It has nothing to do with whether it's easy psychologically to do so or not. If the Buddha had no desire for anything but liberation, then arguably he had no desire for going into the forest either. Between having no desire for going into the forest and no desire for staying in the palace, why would he choose the former over the latter? The answer is that he thought it would get him liberation. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 10, 2019 16:28:05 GMT -5
No, the point is it's not renunciation if you no longer have desire for something (Buddha's story. At some point there was no struggle between staying and leaving, he just left. {If you're down to one chip, it's easy to go All In}). The renunciation we're talking about here is the physical act of giving up house and family and being a mendicant. It has nothing to do with whether it's easy psychologically to do so or not. If the Buddha had no desire for anything but liberation, then arguably he had no desire for going into the forest either. Between having no desire for going into the forest and no desire for staying in the palace, why would he choose the former over the latter? The answer is that he thought it would get him liberation. From what little I read of Siddhartha's story, I don't get the impression he would have characterized his search as one for freedom. Rather, I think he was flabbergasted and horrified - probably shook to the core in pathos - and that his life up to that point had lost all meaning, and it was that meaning he hit the road to try to find. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2019 16:51:12 GMT -5
No, the point is it's not renunciation if you no longer have desire for something (Buddha's story. At some point there was no struggle between staying and leaving, he just left. {If you're down to one chip, it's easy to go All In}). The renunciation we're talking about here is the physical act of giving up house and family and being a mendicant. It has nothing to do with whether it's easy psychologically to do so or not. If the Buddha had no desire for anything but liberation, then arguably he had no desire for going into the forest either. Between having no desire for going into the forest and no desire for staying in the palace, why would he choose the former over the latter? The answer is that he thought it would get him liberation. The way I understand Prince Siddhartha's story was that suffering and old age was excluded from his view out of the palace for many years. I was only when someone of an elderly state was unknowingly made visible to him that the drive was birthed to find out what it was, what it meant and what the liberation from it was. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 10, 2019 22:40:43 GMT -5
The renunciation we're talking about here is the physical act of giving up house and family and being a mendicant. It has nothing to do with whether it's easy psychologically to do so or not. If the Buddha had no desire for anything but liberation, then arguably he had no desire for going into the forest either. Between having no desire for going into the forest and no desire for staying in the palace, why would he choose the former over the latter? The answer is that he thought it would get him liberation. From what little I read of Siddhartha's story, I don't get the impression he would have characterized his search as one for freedom. Rather, I think he was flabbergasted and horrified - probably shook to the core in pathos - and that his life up to that point had lost all meaning, and it was that meaning he hit the road to try to find. Well, at the time, the idea of hitting the forest trail (as a 6th century BC hippie) was probably tightly linked to both freedom and meaning. From one early Sutta I just googled -- this dealing more with the meaning aspect: "Even though I was endowed with such fortune, such total refinement, the thought occurred to me: 'When an untaught, run-of-the-mill person, himself subject to death, not beyond death, sees another who is dead, he is horrified, humiliated, & disgusted, oblivious to himself that he too is subject to death, not beyond death. And if I — who am subject to death, not beyond death — were to be horrified, humiliated, & disgusted on seeing another person who is dead, that would not be fitting for me.' As I noticed this, the living person's intoxication with life entirely dropped away."
And from another -- this dealing more with freedom: "Before my Awakening, when I was still an unawakened Bodhisatta, the thought occurred to me: 'The household life is crowded, a dusty road. Life gone forth is the open air. It isn't easy, living in a home, to lead the holy life that is totally perfect, totally pure, a polished shell. What if I, having shaved off my hair & beard and putting on the ochre robe, were to go forth from the home life into homelessness?'
"So at a later time, when I was still young, black-haired, endowed with the blessings of youth in the first stage of life, having shaved off my hair & beard — though my parents wished otherwise and were grieving with tears on their faces — I put on the ochre robe and went forth from the home life into homelessness." |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 10, 2019 22:44:30 GMT -5
The renunciation we're talking about here is the physical act of giving up house and family and being a mendicant. It has nothing to do with whether it's easy psychologically to do so or not. If the Buddha had no desire for anything but liberation, then arguably he had no desire for going into the forest either. Between having no desire for going into the forest and no desire for staying in the palace, why would he choose the former over the latter? The answer is that he thought it would get him liberation. The way I understand Prince Siddhartha's story was that suffering and old age was excluded from his view out of the palace for many years. I was only when someone of an elderly state was unknowingly made visible to him that the drive was birthed to find out what it was, what it meant and what the liberation from it was. It seems like the stories differ on whether he actually saw someone elderly for the first time or whether it was just that the thought suddenly struck him of the importance and inevitability of old age and death... Either way, though, it's interesting that the response was to decide to become a homeless monk. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 10, 2019 22:54:37 GMT -5
From what little I read of Siddhartha's story, I don't get the impression he would have characterized his search as one for freedom. Rather, I think he was flabbergasted and horrified - probably shook to the core in pathos - and that his life up to that point had lost all meaning, and it was that meaning he hit the road to try to find. Well, at the time, the idea of hitting the forest trail (as a 6th century BC hippie) was probably tightly linked to both freedom and meaning. From one early Sutta I just googled -- this dealing more with the meaning aspect: "Even though I was endowed with such fortune, such total refinement, the thought occurred to me: 'When an untaught, run-of-the-mill person, himself subject to death, not beyond death, sees another who is dead, he is horrified, humiliated, & disgusted, oblivious to himself that he too is subject to death, not beyond death. And if I — who am subject to death, not beyond death — were to be horrified, humiliated, & disgusted on seeing another person who is dead, that would not be fitting for me.' As I noticed this, the living person's intoxication with life entirely dropped away."
And from another -- this dealing more with freedom: "Before my Awakening, when I was still an unawakened Bodhisatta, the thought occurred to me: 'The household life is crowded, a dusty road. Life gone forth is the open air. It isn't easy, living in a home, to lead the holy life that is totally perfect, totally pure, a polished shell. What if I, having shaved off my hair & beard and putting on the ochre robe, were to go forth from the home life into homelessness?'
"So at a later time, when I was still young, black-haired, endowed with the blessings of youth in the first stage of life, having shaved off my hair & beard — though my parents wished otherwise and were grieving with tears on their faces — I put on the ochre robe and went forth from the home life into homelessness."Thanks for affording me the easy opportunity for reading more about that story! Very applicable reply.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 10, 2019 22:57:22 GMT -5
The way I understand Prince Siddhartha's story was that suffering and old age was excluded from his view out of the palace for many years. I was only when someone of an elderly state was unknowingly made visible to him that the drive was birthed to find out what it was, what it meant and what the liberation from it was. It seems like the stories differ on whether he actually saw someone elderly for the first time or whether it was just that the thought suddenly struck him of the importance and inevitability of old age and death... Either way, though, it's interesting that the response was to decide to become a homeless monk. And in favor of the renunciate view, I recall reading that he required his monks to go out and beg for every meal, but I don't know if that's accurate or not. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 11, 2019 7:40:24 GMT -5
It seems like the stories differ on whether he actually saw someone elderly for the first time or whether it was just that the thought suddenly struck him of the importance and inevitability of old age and death... Either way, though, it's interesting that the response was to decide to become a homeless monk. And in favor of the renunciate view, I recall reading that he required his monks to go out and beg for every meal, but I don't know if that's accurate or not. Yeah I heard that too, but it also appears that he did have some lay disciples, like Anathapindika -- a wealthy businessman and essentially a kind of patron who helped build Buddhist institutions... |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 11, 2019 15:21:28 GMT -5
The renunciation we're talking about here is the physical act of giving up house and family and being a mendicant. It has nothing to do with whether it's easy psychologically to do so or not. If the Buddha had no desire for anything but liberation, then arguably he had no desire for going into the forest either. Between having no desire for going into the forest and no desire for staying in the palace, why would he choose the former over the latter? The answer is that he thought it would get him liberation. From what little I read of Siddhartha's story, I don't get the impression he would have characterized his search as one for freedom. Rather, I think he was flabbergasted and horrified - probably shook to the core in pathos - and that his life up to that point had lost all meaning, and it was that meaning he hit the road to try to find. Yes. |
|
