Experiences, his and ours. Problem of Dharma Permanence
At precisely my age and also with a fresh family, the Buddha who was not yet the Buddha but Prince Siddhārtha Gautama walked away from his home and the life he knew to begin his quest for answers.
His behaviour is generally forgiven, even excused -- times were different then. He was a prince, the marriage arranged, and offspring automatic. His family was well-cared for in his absence.
Scriptural accounts of his return portray his wife as unamused for my understanding -- 'that's your father,' she says to their son Rāhula, 'Go ask him for your inheritance.' (Of course, now the Buddha, Siddhārtha no longer has any worldly possessions to offer but his teachings, the Dharma, and has Rāhula ordained.) But considering accounts that his return home was initially by request of his father who missed him dearly, and both his stepmother and his wife becoming nuns as previously mentioned, it would seem that his action of abandonment was quickly forgiven then as well.
Siddhārtha had the experience of material wealth, was a trained and skillful warrior true to his lineage, and by all accounts even blessed with particularly good looks. This is point one: He was able to decide for himself from first-hand experience that this was not doing it for him. That's not something everyone can go and try out.
Then he was able to drop it all and try another path without worrying about his family's financial well-being, it was his choice alone to experience poverty for himself. This is point two: He entered this life completely of his own will and with somewhat clear intentions. Not as most of us who would find ourselves experiencing this would end up there -- by circumstances beyond our control, tormented by multiple stresses, and in a constant struggle to avoid or escape it.
Of course he didn't just walk away from the palace that night and shave his head and *poof!* he was enlightened and understood the true nature of the world and what's wrong with it and how to fix it so we all live happily ever after. He was trying things out, he had this long bout with asceticism which nearly killed him as he was near starvation by the time he decided that this was not the way to the answers he sought. But he tried it out to come to that realisation...which becomes point three.
It was only after all of these, these key experiences, that Siddhārtha was able to sit himself down beneath the Bodhi tree decisively and meditate his way soon after to becoming the Buddha.
As the Buddha himself would tell us, cause and effect are not to be overlooked, the fact that all things are connected is of such importance that it's difficult for me to understand why we aren't required to similarly experience each step along this way to find these conclusions for ourselves. As he himself also taught, we're not to follow his or anyone else's word blindly but weigh it against our own experiences and common sense and see if it all fits.
So what I am not really understanding now is how we are supposed to know that we don't also have to try both extremes to be sure that "The Middle Way" is best for us, and to find our place on it. Why take his word for it, especially when he himself tells us not to ?
He tells us to rely on only ourselves, yet there is still always the Dharma (and in various schools the Buddha and the Sangha and individual gurus and so forth, but for the sake of fair argument I try to stay to the purest teachings). Is it cotradicting itself or is this outside source just meant to be a guide for 'seeking within'? Kind of like a travel guide for another country, it's written by someone who has been there and can explain the experience and offer tips, but it's by no means a substitute for going there yourself, and it's also possible to visit there without any such a guide, it's just likely to mean more work finding your way to and within it.
I know you're still ultimately alone in all experiences and maybe that is what is meant but then why is it prescribed instead of just described ? Of course we can do something without being aware of it and maybe we are just meant to be doing this...well, mindfully :)
--
Regarding one of the problems of the previous post, it seems that Nirvāna be outside the realm of "phenomenon" -- and interestingly enough, the term used for phenomenon in this context is the Pāli Dhamma or Sanskrit Dharma. Because of the ambiguous definitions for translations of those words I'm not sure if that is a solution to the problem of Dharma Permanence (being that its relevance ending when Nirvāna is achieved also denotes impermanence) or if that actually has nothing to do with this issue.
His behaviour is generally forgiven, even excused -- times were different then. He was a prince, the marriage arranged, and offspring automatic. His family was well-cared for in his absence.
Scriptural accounts of his return portray his wife as unamused for my understanding -- 'that's your father,' she says to their son Rāhula, 'Go ask him for your inheritance.' (Of course, now the Buddha, Siddhārtha no longer has any worldly possessions to offer but his teachings, the Dharma, and has Rāhula ordained.) But considering accounts that his return home was initially by request of his father who missed him dearly, and both his stepmother and his wife becoming nuns as previously mentioned, it would seem that his action of abandonment was quickly forgiven then as well.
Siddhārtha had the experience of material wealth, was a trained and skillful warrior true to his lineage, and by all accounts even blessed with particularly good looks. This is point one: He was able to decide for himself from first-hand experience that this was not doing it for him. That's not something everyone can go and try out.
Then he was able to drop it all and try another path without worrying about his family's financial well-being, it was his choice alone to experience poverty for himself. This is point two: He entered this life completely of his own will and with somewhat clear intentions. Not as most of us who would find ourselves experiencing this would end up there -- by circumstances beyond our control, tormented by multiple stresses, and in a constant struggle to avoid or escape it.
Of course he didn't just walk away from the palace that night and shave his head and *poof!* he was enlightened and understood the true nature of the world and what's wrong with it and how to fix it so we all live happily ever after. He was trying things out, he had this long bout with asceticism which nearly killed him as he was near starvation by the time he decided that this was not the way to the answers he sought. But he tried it out to come to that realisation...which becomes point three.
It was only after all of these, these key experiences, that Siddhārtha was able to sit himself down beneath the Bodhi tree decisively and meditate his way soon after to becoming the Buddha.
As the Buddha himself would tell us, cause and effect are not to be overlooked, the fact that all things are connected is of such importance that it's difficult for me to understand why we aren't required to similarly experience each step along this way to find these conclusions for ourselves. As he himself also taught, we're not to follow his or anyone else's word blindly but weigh it against our own experiences and common sense and see if it all fits.
So what I am not really understanding now is how we are supposed to know that we don't also have to try both extremes to be sure that "The Middle Way" is best for us, and to find our place on it. Why take his word for it, especially when he himself tells us not to ?
He tells us to rely on only ourselves, yet there is still always the Dharma (and in various schools the Buddha and the Sangha and individual gurus and so forth, but for the sake of fair argument I try to stay to the purest teachings). Is it cotradicting itself or is this outside source just meant to be a guide for 'seeking within'? Kind of like a travel guide for another country, it's written by someone who has been there and can explain the experience and offer tips, but it's by no means a substitute for going there yourself, and it's also possible to visit there without any such a guide, it's just likely to mean more work finding your way to and within it.
I know you're still ultimately alone in all experiences and maybe that is what is meant but then why is it prescribed instead of just described ? Of course we can do something without being aware of it and maybe we are just meant to be doing this...well, mindfully :)
--
Regarding one of the problems of the previous post, it seems that Nirvāna be outside the realm of "phenomenon" -- and interestingly enough, the term used for phenomenon in this context is the Pāli Dhamma or Sanskrit Dharma. Because of the ambiguous definitions for translations of those words I'm not sure if that is a solution to the problem of Dharma Permanence (being that its relevance ending when Nirvāna is achieved also denotes impermanence) or if that actually has nothing to do with this issue.