About Gandhi - Is this true?

[MechEng]

21 minutes ago, sarcastic said:

That is only in "dharm shastr" and not in real life. Most of the kings lead very luxurious life and had lot of women. Some successful kings may have also had implemented good policies and wages wars to expand/defend boundaries but most kings did not unless they felt it is very safe and comfortable for them to do that. Most average people will not want to leave all that luxury in pursuit of truth... I know a few relatives who were born in wealthy family and they hardly worked hard to study/do something in life since everything is already set for them to lead a comfortable life in terms of money/luxuries. Average person does not want to work but just want everything free. And if you are getting something free as inheritance, who wants to risk loosing it. I will rather put that he might have escaped something but also sacrificed something much bigger which many average people will not risk loosing. 

 

You second point about Buddha not being a single person is debatable but there is ample evidence to assess that he indeed existed. In the case of Jesus, he was not that popular during his life time or even until many decades. Hence, even though the historicity is debated by scholars but some historical Jesus who taught to the Jews in Judea and eventually got crucified by the Roman government is accepted. 

 

In the case of Buddha, we have the pillar erected in Lumbini by Ashoka (king Piyadasi) in 3rd century BC where he stated that Buddha was born there two centuries ago. Since it is only 200 years since, it is unlikely that people of Ashoka's time will be misled of a non-historical figure. 

Again, just because a king does not fight wars for a long period of time it does not mean that he will let his fighting skills to accumulate dust, a king must be ready every moment. Regarding your relatives, they do not have the responsibility to run a country/kingdom.

 

Tomorrow if Narendra Modi suffers a mid life crisis and quits his PM post to search for enlightenment what will happen to India? Think from that perspective.

 

 

[MechEng]

25 minutes ago, beetle said:

True.

No one can be perfect in all roles but then one has to accept the failings along with the success.

 

In a country like ours where we tend to paint heroes only as white and try to brush everything a little different in shade under the carpet....such issues which are big enough on their own are considered insignificant.

 

Like Rams treatment of his pregnant wife is a huge character flaw that is not even open for discussion  and it is brushed off lest it puts a mark on his reputation as the maryada purushotam . 

 

There is no harm in accepting that Gods and heroes were not perfect and take lessons from their failings. But instead even their failings are seen as great sacrifices.

 

Sidharth did not abandon his wife and child....he sacrificed his grahastya life for greater good.We put a positive spin on the negative which in turns becomes an excuse for followers.

 

Ram did not treat his pregnant wife bad...instead he was being a good king by considering the feelings of his praja.He made his wife and children suffer for the good of his praja. Were his wife and children not his responsibility as a king?

Apparently not. One can be bad to wife and kids because they are not significant enough to cause social outrage.

If he had thrown out his parents or siblings....then he would be cursed. But wife and children are disposble in this culture.

You leave your parents or sibling...

You are a sinner. You leave your wife or children....you are a saint who sacrificed family for greater good.

 

 

beetleji, Siddhartha was a weak king if he existed. If a grown up man becomes depressed seeing a dead/diseased/old person, then that shows how immature he was. India has always been a major target for foreign empires because of it's wealth and this country could never afford such a mental midget of a king.

Edited April 21, 2018 by MechEng

[Muloghonto]

34 minutes ago, beetle said:

True.

No one can be perfect in all roles but then one has to accept the failings along with the success.

 

In a country like ours where we tend to paint heroes only as white and try to brush everything a little different in shade under the carpet....such issues which are big enough on their own are considered insignificant.

 

Like Rams treatment of his pregnant wife is a huge character flaw that is not even open for discussion  and it is brushed off lest it puts a mark on his reputation as the maryada purushotam . 

 

There is no harm in accepting that Gods and heroes were not perfect and take lessons from their failings. But instead even their failings are seen as great sacrifices.

 

Sidharth did not abandon his wife and child....he sacrificed his grahastya life for greater good.We put a positive spin on the negative which in turns becomes an excuse for followers.

 

Ram did not treat his pregnant wife bad...instead he was being a good king by considering the feelings of his praja.He made his wife and children suffer for the good of his praja. Were his wife and children not his responsibility as a king?

I agree with most of it, except Siddharta's. He was a prince, by all accounts his wife and kids led a royal life. He left. Its a bit like saying 'i divorce u and go travel the world' = bad. That, especially when you garantee the upkeep (and a grand one at that), is kind of saying you have to stick around, no-matter what. In the ancient world, where man typically travelled 5-50kms per day, means anyone who goes long-distance for anything, is a bad man. 

I am not quite sure how is Siddharta supposed to use his experience to gain whatever knowledge, via travelling, can be gotten without said travel or carrying a giant royal tent-party around- which completely changes the whole experience itself. 

You are however, 100% correct about Ram being a terrible human being for caring about his image (which according to the story, is already set and long has been set by the people as the best-est king image ever) than caring about his wife & kids, based on hearsay.

Its the classic 'honor trap' sexism that feudalistic men often engage in- even today. 

 

All i know, is I'd have taken the Genghis Khan approach. Not many know, but Genghis Khan was a bit of a unique 'Mongol Khan' in the sense that he actually had a true wife and was not the standard 'harem with a favorite' but more of a 'wife + openly screws around when much more 'king of the harem' is expected of him. 
His wife, got stolen, as was common in Mongol rivalries. He and his buddy Jamukha rescued her- around 8 months later. She was heavily pregnant. A month or so later, she gave birth to their first kid, Jochi. She then sired Ogedei, Tolui and a few others - these two and another, subsequent Great Khans  of the Mongols. 

However, Genghis's approach was simple : question Borte's position and you die. Question his fatherhood of Jochi and you also die. As long as Genghis lived, nobody had a problem with Borte or Jochi. Subsequently, Jochi's fate would be cataclysmic to the Mongol empire, but nobody ever questioned Borte's status as the Queen and Queen Mother- long after Genghis died. 

The entire lineage of Great Khans of Mongolia is not just of Genghis, its also of Borte (his wife): Nobody ever became the Great Khan of the Mongols, that was not also a descendant of Borte's sons with Genghis. Borte was his first wife, the child-bride that was promised to Genghis & he married as a child himself. And for a long time, his only wife. He subsequently made marriage alliances but also openly declared no one shall become Great Khan, if not sired by him via Borte. 

By all accounts, Genghis not just loved, but highly respected Borte. It also did not matter to him, in a culture where old men stole pretty young girls as bride in bridal raids ( mongols were not united before Genghis), that Borte was actually a year older than Genghis himself. 

As far as being a hubby goes, in my books, Genghis > Ram. 

 

Quote

Apparently not. One can be bad to wife and kids because they are not significant enough to cause social outrage.

If he had thrown out his parents or siblings....then he would be cursed. But wife and children are disposble in this culture.

Not just this culture, in vast majority of cultures. 

Quote

You leave your parents or sibling...

You are a sinner. You leave your wife or children....you are a saint who sacrificed family for greater good.

Again, a bit harsh. One does not become a saint by leaving wife and kids either. However, some have attained great insights and by travelling the world after what would be ancient version of 'divorce'. 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2018 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, MechEng said:

beetleji, Siddhartha was a weak king if he existed. If a grown up man becomes depressed seeing a dead/diseased/old person, then that shows how immature he was.

I dont think the story is of depression, its a bit of 'wtf'. And tbh, its not hard to understand either. Though it is not explicitly mentioned in the Buddhist texts, it is implied that Siddharta had every care met for in the world and his father, spoilt him rotten. This is the modern day 'rich kid syndrome'  having a 'wtf moment' after being exposed to 'real life'. Atleast,thats how the story is written. Doesn't make him a weak king- and actually, he was never king in the first place. Always a prince- renounced his claim as crown prince, when daddy was still alive. 

 

1 minute ago, MechEng said:

India has always been a major target for foreing empires because of it's wealth and this country could never afford such a mental midget of a king.

Siddharta was not king of India. There have been very few kings who've even controlled 50% of India before the muslims. Siddharta, apparently was prince of the Lichchavvis- who basically ruled a bit of northern Bihar and Southern Nepal region, probably the size of modern day Tripura, at best. 

[Stradlater]

Buddha didn't exist? Lol there are countless texts verifying his existence. He was contemporary of Ajatshatru and Prasenjit and his name is mentioned in various literature related to both the kings. 

If Buddha is not real than no historical figure is. You can always doubt anybody's existence.

[Stradlater]

2 hours ago, MechEng said:

beetleji, Siddhartha was a weak king if he existed. If a grown up man becomes depressed seeing a dead/diseased/old person, then that shows how immature he was. India has always been a major target for foreign empires because of it's wealth and this country could never afford such a mental midget of a king.

You are talking out of your rear end again.

Firstly Like Muloghonto said he was never a king to begin with. He was a young prince with all the worldly pleasure at his disposal. And he didn't become 'depressed', he had an epiphany which prompted him leave the luxury of his kingdom and seek out the truth.

No depressed man could have survived in the wild for nearly a decade like Siddhartha did living simply on fruits and water. He meditated constantly until one day when he was sitting under a banyan tree in Gaya when he attained Nirvana.

Thereafter he decided to spread his message to the world. And not by sword but by ahimsa.

 

Lol His kingdom was a small one at the foothills of Himalayas near Nepal therefore danger of invasion was never really there. 

And you are forgetting the most important thing. Siddhartha was from the Shakya clan of Lichhavi Kshatriya who were Ganrajya and not simply Monarchy. There were several Kings in that kingdom and they collectively took all the decisions. It was sorta oligarchy system. Siddhartha never really had any danger to his kingdom.

[beetle]

4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

. He left. Its a bit like saying 'i divorce u and go travel the world' = bad. That, especially when you garantee the upkeep (and a grand one at that), is kind of saying you have to stick around, no-matter what.

A father is supposed to be a part of the child's life even after a divorce. He can divorce the wife but not the child.

 

A father who just walks out of the life of his child is a bad irresponsible father , no matter how well he provides for the abandoned family. He may have other qualities but has to take the blame of being the absentee father. 

 

That is what I mean....you can't just say he is all good . He did something that was not good and he should be called out for that irrespective of all the good he may have done for others.

[Stradlater]

People here are as usual missing the bigger picture and conveniently seems to be ignoring the greater good of humanity part.

So what if Siddhartha left his wife and son? It's not as if they were impoverished or living in destitute conditions. They were the richest people in the entire kingdom and thus well looked after. But by leaving the home, Siddhartha ensured that humanity gets benefited by his teachings and messages. 

Sometime You have to take hard decisions which even though can be criticized if we take a narrow view of the picture but in the grand scheme of things are extremely helpful for the betterment of humanity.

 

Nothing is perfect in this world.By that token Your each and every action could be criticized if we don't broaden our horizon and miss the big picture. So yeah Maybe Rahul and his mother suffered a little but the overall gain made to the humanity by that decision of Siddhartha trumps everything.

 

By same logic no one is immune to scrutiny. Bhagat Singh and his associates could be branded as assassins by the similar logic. Every great leader has  blood in his hands going by this assessment  since thousands perished because of the many controversial decisions taken by them even though now in the hindsight we find that those were extremely necessary considering prevailing circumstances.

That's not how things work really. Bigger picture is far more important.

[Temujin Khaghan]

can we safely say w.r.t morality 

 

Buddha > Jesus > Moses > Muhammad 

[beetle]

4 minutes ago, Garuda said:

I don't buy it. There are several people in India and outside who showed sexual restraint but they didn't have to sleep with naked nieces. I don't do drugs but if I fill my room with drug paraphernalia just to prove my drug restraint, I'll get arrested.

read the whole post.

Okay....i get how it got misunderstood.

It was part of the previous post. I removed it from the post about Siddharth and Ram because this was a whole different level of misconduct.

 

Agree completely with your post.

He was a narcicisstic  pedophile and a sexual predator who misused his position.

 

 

Edited April 21, 2018 by beetle

[Stradlater]

18 minutes ago, Temujin Khaghan said:

can we safely say w.r.t morality 

 

Buddha > Jesus > Moses > Muhammad 

Buddha is the greatest human being ever born. Without a question.

 

[rkt.india]

6 minutes ago, Garuda said:

Buddha=Jesus>Muhammad>Moses

Moses ne kya kiya aisa?

[Stradlater]

6 minutes ago, Garuda said:

Buddha=Jesus>Muhammad>Moses

Buddha's teachings led to Buddhism one of the most peaceful and spiritual groups out there.

Jesus was responsible for the birth of Christianity whose followers committeed so many crimes and atrocities around the world that the Ismaic terror pales in the comparison.

 

[Stradlater]

2 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Moses ne kya kiya aisa?

10 stupid commandments.

[beetle]

45 minutes ago, Stradlater said:

That's not how things work really. Bigger picture is far more important.

True...but it is not good to brush the smaller muddier picture under the carpet.

Admire the bigger picture while acknowleging the few dark stains.

Why are we so obsessed with giving a 100 good pristine certificate to all greats?

 

When we choose to paint a pristine picture of imperfect people, we get guys like Gandhi. A sexual predator who we call the father of the nation  because no one dared to show his muddier side to the world at that time.

Edited April 21, 2018 by beetle

[Stradlater]

1 minute ago, beetle said:

True...but it is not good to brush the smaller muddier picture under the carpet.

Admire the bigger picture while acknowleging the few dark stains.

 

When we choose to paint a pristine picture of imperfect people, we get guys like Gandhi. A sexual predator who we call the father of the nation  because no one dared to show his muddier side to the world at that time.

Nobdoy is brushing it under the carpet. You are the only one who is hell bent on giving it an undue importance. 

If we use your logic than there wouldn't be any single human being left who could be completely praised for his actions.

Criticism just for the sake of it isn't something I agree with.

[beetle]

3 minutes ago, Stradlater said:

Nobdoy is brushing it under the carpet. You are the only one who is hell bent on giving it an undue importance. 

If we use your logic than there wouldn't be any single human being left who could be completely praised for his actions.

Criticism just for the sake of it isn't something I agree with.

What criticism ? Did I deny the rest of his legacy ? 

Calling him a bad father and husband?

Okay....he was a really good father and husband .That should complete the big beautiful picture. 

Edited April 21, 2018 by beetle

[Stradlater]

2 minutes ago, beetle said:

What criticism ? Did I deny the rest of his legacy ? 

Calling him a bad father and husband?

Okay....he was a really good father and husband .That should complete the big beautiful picture. 

You again failed to understand the point. Fine we get it he was a bad father but relentlessly bringing it up again and again to score points online isn't cool with me.

Baki your wish.

[beetle]

1 minute ago, Stradlater said:

You again failed to understand the point. Fine we get it he was a bad father but relentlessly bringing it up again and again to score points online isn't cool with me.

Baki your wish.

All I am trying to say is that our obsession with painting a perfect picture of our Gods and heroes is  not right.

 

Imperfections don't make their achievements less.

 

Shiva was imperfect and his worshippers don't try to hide that he  did pot and other stuff that  may not be  considered good..He is the imperfect God and that is fine.

 

Same  with Krishna. He was practical

And not necessarily always morally right.

That is fine .

 

Similarly  siddharth  was a visionary and and  worked for peace in a violent world.He was also unfair as a father.....and that should be fine  too.

[Stradlater]

6 minutes ago, Garuda said:

I present you srilanka. We should watch this hindutva thing too. Buddhism and Hinduism are no perfect angels but comparatively better than Christianity and Islam and their master religion of the chosen people.

Sri Lankan Buddhists are like little kids in front of Christianity and Islam. I suggest you to read up a little bit on both of theirs history.