I really don't know what we mean by liberty and freedom. Would a street dog like to go with a rich man to become a pet? What is more important for the dog? Material well-being or the freedom of movement? I don't know. A stray dog may not like to become a pet. Similarly, a pet may also not like to become a stray dog because it has become used to the comforts of life. He has become more disconnected from the freedom of the streets, and that's why the street's risks and vulnerabilities may be too great for the pet.
Man has also got used to the comforts. The luxuries of the flats and the safety of society. Why would he dare to stay alone? That's too dangerous and risky. Who would take care of Buddha in the forest? An animal may kill him, an insect may bite, or he may not get food. He may not even get a clean toilet to use. There is no certainty of safe drinking water. He may not have any place to stay, and under the sky, he may fall ill with no one to take care of him and no medicines available. Why would Buddha dare to go to the forest, leaving all the comforts of society?
What do we really mean when we talk of freedom? It's easy. It's a freedom to do whatever we want. Wait. It looks easy, but it is not that easy. Buddha was the prince and had all the freedom in his kingdom. Then why did he decide to leave his kingdom? He would have enjoyed freedom from all the problems in his kingdom, rather than going to the forest. But can we see the "silent exploitation" of the Buddha by society while he was living in his kingdom? He has to conform to society's standards. He can't challenge the fundamental questions of life, such as life and death. No. Society always works on the principles of give and take. If you want to live in society, you have to believe in the fundamental presumptions. Its most fundamental principle is "going concern". Life will go on, and we should not think of death. Buddha challenged the very basic premise of society, and that's how he turned the tables. If the purpose of the society at that time, and maybe the society of the present day also, is to maximise pleasure and comforts, he challenged the very meaning of life. Who is seeking pleasure? The ego or the I?
For Buddha, truth was more important than anything else. He would give his life, too, to know the truth. I see a lot of people claiming and believing in the concept of self-love. I really do not understand what they mean by self-love. Is this self-love all about making oneself comfortable? Physically and mentally? To have the comforts that keep the body happy, such as the right temperature, a clean environment, good food, comfortable furniture, a safe ecosystem and so on? Is it also about psychological comfort, such as feeling safe, not being harassed, getting fair treatment, having the security of good friends and family, and feeling like we can explore whatever we want to do? Or is it much beyond that?
There is no doubt that one can explore while working in an organisation; however, one must understand that the organisation's interests come first, and one's own drive to explore will have to take a back seat in the event of a conflict. Society and family are also forms of organisation in which individual interests must take a back seat in the event of conflict. Can there be exploration of truth within the boundaries of any frame? I doubt. That's why Buddha chose all those vulnerabilities of the forest to know the truth in its most naked form. He would not allow that to be contaminated for certain comforts by whatever name we call them. I am not sure what we want to achieve in the name of self-love and freedom. Isn't it another trap? Isn't our craving for freedom tantamount to seeking pleasure in a different form? There is nothing right or wrong. But we just need to be absolutely clear so that we call a spade a spade. Is a search for truth possible when we choose the so-called "self-love" over truth? What if Buddha had chosen the self-love the way we understand this phrase? Can the so-called self-love take us anywhere near the self?
Comments