tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869928152742589263.post1067457989735213788..comments2023-10-29T18:05:57.632+05:30Comments on Typos: THE NAKED TRUTHPrashanto Banerjihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01950861619062559453noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869928152742589263.post-30637126677911959342009-04-03T16:49:00.000+05:302009-04-03T16:49:00.000+05:30I liked the article ,good ,keep it up....I liked the article ,good ,keep it up....Zitin Mehtahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10415215409904695532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869928152742589263.post-70402458628277519592009-04-01T15:26:00.000+05:302009-04-01T15:26:00.000+05:30Talk of renunciation on the part of those who have...Talk of renunciation on the part of those who have no wealth is ridiculous. What would they renounce? Buddha could talk of renunciation because he was born in an affluent family. Buddha could afford to leave Yashodhara, his wife, behind, and move to the forest to live the life of an ascetic, because he knew that Yashodhara had a palace and every other means of security that one needs. But if a Buddha of the present times leaves his Yashodara a for twelve years, then at the end of twelve years he will find Yashodhara in some brothel and not in her home. Buddha could leave his son. Rahul, behind. because on his return he would find him in his own home.<BR/>But it a present-day Buddha leaves his son and goes to the forest, the son will be found either in some orphanage or begging on the streets of Delhi\ Bombay. It would even be difficult to locate him. Buddha had abundant wealth, and men like him can very well talk of sacrifice because they have plenty to sacrifice. <BR/>But the irony is that people who had nothing chose to follow those who had plenty. All the wise men of this country came from affluent families, while the rest of the people lived in poverty and misery. I wonder how the people accepted their teaching and agreed to follow them. But there is a logic behind it, a reason for it. The poor derived some pleasure, some satisfaction from their acceptance of the Buddhas. They now said to themselves, "What is there in wealth? Buddha had so much and he is begging in the streets. We are already Buddhas; we are already beggars." The mind of India, that had suffered so much poverty, felt consoled and gratified. We were pleased to see Buddha and Mahavira begging. He bowed down to them not because of them, but because of the consolation we derived from them. We thought that we were blessed in our misery. <BR/>But, it is one thing to live in a palace and then leave it and beg, and quite another never to have lived in a palace and be a beggar on the streets. Buddha was not an ordinary beggar; even as a beggar he moved with the dignity and grace of a lord.Mahendra Mehtahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08387932460578962632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869928152742589263.post-22898987266210578082009-04-01T14:20:00.000+05:302009-04-01T14:20:00.000+05:30I think God is the impossible to find. From thousa...I think God is the impossible to find. From thousands of years people are searching for him, those who found, could not be understood by ordinary people but became religious, and those who saw god abandoned the materialistic world. Religion itself is nothing but a passion for the impossible, the passion for the impossible.Mahendra Mehtahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08387932460578962632noreply@blogger.com