Buddha: Birth, Karma and Our Dharma

Author: Ankit Dhakal "Sandeept"

On the birth of Siddhartha Gautam

About 2600 years ago, on the night of Baishakh Poornima, at Lumbini, Mother Mayadevi gave birth to Siddhartha Gautam. In different times of the history, the Holy Land of Lumbini belonged to different nations. In modern times, it is within the territory of Nepal. This should not, however mean that the Buddha was a Nepali. He was not a citizen of any modern country. Making him a citizen is unfair- historically as well as morally[1].

This is an era of science and technology. Everything is evaluated according to facts and evidences. Had the culture, art and writings of the Buddha Era not been proved, the Buddha might have been declared a myth. But evidences until now have shown all the paths of the Buddha's journey. The historians have also agreed upon the fact that Lumbini was his birthplace. On the other hand, they have not been able to actually pointed out the year of his birth. That's exactly what we need to discover. The accuracy in dates will certainly bring up accurate historical data.

The actual problem is this: It's been 28 years since the "Master Plan" on development of Lumbini has come into action. The slow work means it has not been completed year. In his twenty-ninth year, even Siddhartha had realised that he needed to seek for the truth. Why haven't we been able to look for the truth? Ways have already been shown by the Buddha, after all.

On the Karma of Siddhartha and the Buddha

Siddhartha is said to have a life of comfort. If he felt the emotional comfort he needed is doubtable. His mother had passed away while he was still an infant and his father could not give him enough time. The only comfortable presence would be of Mother Prajapati. The physical comfort must have been adequate as Raja Shuddhodhan had built up three palaces to meet the needs according to the weather. They did not touch Siddhartha, though. This is one story which shows how Siddhartha behaved:

Every year, Raja Shuddhodhan ploughed fields at the beginning of ropaain (rice cultivation). Siddhartha too was taken on his sixth birthday. Instead of getting involved in the feast, he sat under a tree looking silently at the ants around him. A little farther, he saw a lizard eating them up. As he watched with interest, a snake swallowed the lizard. In no time, a hawk pounced upon the snake and took it away. It was the first time, nature had generated curiosity in him. Why did the food cycle go in the way it did? He started questioning himself. He did not care for any comfort though they were easily provided. That was when the three palaces had been built but Siddhartha always craved to return to the nature. Once out of the palace, he saw an old, a sick and a dead[2]. That inspired him to go back to the nature where he would discover the truth of our lives. And became known to the world as the Buddha.

When the Buddha discovered the cause and cessation of suffering, like a common person, he debated with himself, "Should I preach what I've discovered? What if no one believes me?" He thought he should give it a try. His first preached his thoughts to five people at Kushinagar. His voice might have been soft; he might have preached in local dialect in the simplest way. That was probably why he had a huge number of followers. Gautam Buddha is the chief inspiration to the Buddhists all around the world.

One does not become great by their birth, but by their deeds (karma). Siddhartha was born as a warrior. He should have battled all his life. But he preached peace. I bow to the Buddha who became great with his karma; not by his birth.

Our Dharma

To me, right deed is the Dharma. It was Siddhartha's Dharma to discover the truth behind our suffering. Buddha's Dharma was to teach what he knew. Would we have discusses the Buddha had he not done what he should have done? But our Dharma is not just to discuss the life of Buddha. Our Dharma is to practice what he preached. To preserve his path and messages should be our Dharma. Only then we can really respect him.

[Footnotes:
1. Great people are known by their Karma. Only those inspired by right Karma are respected by all, wherever they might have taken birth.
There has been a craze to make Buddha a Nepali. Photoshopped citizenship of the Buddha can be seen in the social media. Not only it is a mockery to the history, it is also an immoral trend. We have politicised the Buddha to conceal our inefficiency. Buddha's teaching are cying alone on in the cornered shelves of libraries.

2. Buddha's stories say that Siddhartha saw three men- an elderly, an ill and a corpse in three consequtive days. Did he actually see one person? Maybe on the first day, he saw an old man and got curious. On the second day, he might have discovered that the old man was sick. The man might have died before Siddhartha saw him the third day. He might have perceived that people suffered. And he might have set a quest to discover the ways to end suffering.]

A similar article has been published here in Nepali.

Democracy or Aristodemocracy?

Author: Ankit Dhakal (Sandeept)*

“Might is Right", the proverb goes. It was true then(when the proverb was invented), and it is true till date. From then till now, only the way of attaining might has changed and nothing else.

A mighty Emperor one would be in the past if he ruled a vast area of land with the help of his warlords and terror of weapon. He would do anything to remain in the power. He would be worshiped; people would bow their heads in front of him. Following his orders would be a compulsion; if not you might be killed in no time. All his foolish wishes had to be fulfilled; after all he had the might and he was the right. On this regard, I remember the stories of Akbar and Birbal. Akbar was a wise king, but like every other kings he had pride of his might and made his subjects do whatever he wished. Birbal, the wise often stopped him from doing so but he too used to fall in dilemma when the king used to order things like bull’s milk and building castle in the air. The stories of Akbar and Birbal may not be actual histories. A historical example of Surendra and Junge may be relevant here. Because Junge(Jung Bahadur Rana-Junge was what Surendra called him!) wanted to gain powers taking the advantage of perssuation over Surendra, he jumped into Trishuli with a horse, and jumped into a dry well . (It is also said that he jumped off the top of Dharahara with an umbrella!) Later on, when he gained his might what he did to Surendra and his children is a bitter part of history: even innocent people suffered his tyranny.

The etymology of the word “Democracy” leads us to the “rule of the people” in Greek. Democracy was practiced in Athens in the ancient times which spread to Europe with varying forms. Rome and Sparta had their own type of democracy but the main essence was that they worked in unison to the thoughts of people called citizens. To say that they followed modern democratic norms would be a mistake. The “citizens” were originally those who dwelt in the city minus the women, the slaves and the tradesmen. What we get as citizens were the rich men called ‘elites’. So, when we talk of democracy, aristocracy automatically comes into the scene.

In modern times, democracy and aristocracy(the rule of the elites) are used antonymously. This is the illusion that people have been suffering from in the developing and under-developed countries. The definition of citizen has changed and all the adults democratically cast votes to their representatives but they are ruled under aristocracy. In almost all the countries following democracy, one can become candidate in the elections easily but the winner is, in most of the cases, one who can spend money—actually distribute money among the people. Political parties that have strong support of the industrialists and capitalists usually win the elections. It is because the aid from the rich-class people can be used in campaigns to create vote-banks. Communists call this capitalism, I call this aristodemocracy—the democracy in which the elites are a little higher in status than the people of other economic classes. I am not sure if such a rule exists in the developed countries but Sir Charles Waldstein had given the term “aristodemocracy” in his book of the same name. However, the book explains vastly on the military strategies required to establish peace in the world. (The ideas seem contrasting, don't they?)

The sixteenth US President Abraham Lincoln said, “Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people.” The people elect their representatives and expect that the popular needs are fulfilled through them. When the representatives of people like parliamentarians are elected by the people on the ground of their abilities, it is certain that they will do something for the development of at least their constituency. But if they are elected by the favor of elites, the “people’s representatives” are enslaved; resulting increased corruption, class-conflict and anarchy.

In democratic countries, mightier are those who get popular votes off their abilities; they gain majority and they are the tyrants over minorities. In aristodemocratic countries, the mightier are those who get popular votes with the help of the rich-class; the minority group rules the majority group taking advantage over their inability to make apt decisions and choices. This should be impossible according to the modern democratic norms but its going on here, on the land from which I am writing this essay.

How can aristodemocracy be defeated? I am not sure there is an absolute answer to this question. Which place is there which does not have the gap between the haves and the have-nots? You might think of the USA, Obama’s country at an instant but the depictions of slum-like places in New York(Manhattan?) in movies and accounts of many tourists have showed that poor are always the poor. Another country that clicks into everyone’s mind is the UK, the kingdom of Queen Elizabeth, but I have heard a personal account of the poors’ life in slums of England from a young Bangla-originated Englishman, Sabirul Islam. There is always a great possibility that monetary resources are exploited by the election candidates. Therefore, he only way of turning over aristodemocracy  is to increase the political awareness among people or make it clear that the winner is the one who can use money to their advantage. 

If we want the citizens to be aware, when citizens vote for their representatives, they should be careful that the candidate is not under the influence of aristocrats and anarchists. Mass media and social media can be useful in raising awareness among the ordinary people and in helping them select the correct representatives. But the most essential need is that the leaders should be loyal to all the citizens; not only to the elite-class but also to the poor class.

*The article was first published on khichadi-literature.blogspot.com by the author in 2014.

My United Nations-A Vision for the Future

*Author: Roshan Bhandari

I vividly remember my childhood days when my grandfather used to narrate the famous story of a farmer and his always-quarreling sons! The farmer, to teach them a lesson, when gave a single, separate piece of stick to each of the sons, they could break those easily while when he provided those sticks in a bundle, none could break. “Unity is strength!” my grandfather used to exclaim. And yes! To the level of my understanding, this is the ‘unity’ where-upon has lied every hopes, success of the United Nations(UN) and the same will carry and materialize the strong pillars of all visions in the future!

We know, the UN‘s security council with the motto “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” is working day and night to maintain the international peace. Meanwhile, what it still needs is cent percent generous co-operations from all other members i.e. it longs for the ‘non-selfish unity’ to freely carry out ‘Conflict prevention and Peacemaking’, Peacekeeping, Peace-building, ‘Women peace and security’ and combat terrorism and organized crimes like drug trafficking, flesh trade etc. Similarly, the Human Rights Commission urges for the same unity so that it can work more strongly whether for child rights, labour rights or women empowerment and so forth. Similarly, whether it is to end hunger, poverty in all forms everywhere or to take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts or to ensure equitable quality education or healthy lives i.e. to achieve all the post-2015 developmental agendas, an intensive-unified effort is a must.

In a nutshell, despite the requirement of funds, manpower etc for every agendas, the basic fruitful outcomes of all lies in the optimum ‘unity and support’. Therefore, in the days to come, the UN should and will advance to more strengthened, coordinated and intensified ‘cold war-free’ unity to achieve all, if not most, goals in time.

*This article was submitted as one of the competing essays on UNITED NATIONS' website for an essay competition few months back by the author!