Siddhartha's Sister
Right now, I'm watching the PBS portrait of The Buddha.
I want to establish right at the outset that I consider the teachings of the Buddha to be one of humanity's greatest gifts and achievements; I'm saying that because I can never hear about the life story of the Buddha without getting righteously pissed off and I don't want anyone to think I have no respect for Buddhism and its adherents.
What's my beef with the Buddha? Simply put, Siddhartha was a deadbeat dad. He abandoned his wife and son. I don't care that he left them in lives of supreme comfort. I don't care that he left them to go on a spiritual quest. On the PBS programme, the talking heads say things like, "Yes, his family was upset, but there can be no enlightenment without suffering. In order to gain all, you have to give up everything."
Blah blah blah. My question is: what if the Buddha had been a woman? What if Siddhartha's sister had been the one born under a great prophecy? Say that she'd been given the same sumptuous, sheltered upbringing as her brother, had a happy marriage and gave birth to a child, and then on a journey outside the palace encountered the same suffering --
-- wait! That assumes that a woman of that time and social class would even be allowed to go out travelling with no chaperone except a charioteer. I don't know enough about women's lives in that time and place, so let's just handwave and posit that a woman would be allowed to travel as freely as a man (even though it's not bloody likely).
So Siddhartha's Sister encounters age and suffering and death, and decides to become an ascetic to seek enlightenment. And with great sorrow -- nobody is saying that this was an easy or heartless decision -- she sneaks out of the palace in the dead of night, leaving her husband and child behind.
You can tell where I'm going with this, can't you? She'd have been vilified. Unnatural mother! Terrible wife! How dare she abandon her responsibilities to her family to run off like that? How could she be so SELFISH?
Do you think the great religion and philosophy of Buddhism would exist today if Siddharta had been a woman? Do you think scholars and talking heads would be excusing her behavior with such compassionate philosophical hindsight? Do you think that Siddhartha's sister would even have survived unmolested long enough to go through the arduous spiritual journey that brought Siddhartha to the Bodhi tree?
Think about it. Even in the story of one of the greatest enlightened spirits in the history of the human species, we run smack into the wall of the patriarchy.
Before he left, Siddhartha named his son Rahula, which according to some interpretations means "fetter". (Way to show the love, Dad!) I can only wonder how his wife felt. "Old ball & chain" indeed...
I want to establish right at the outset that I consider the teachings of the Buddha to be one of humanity's greatest gifts and achievements; I'm saying that because I can never hear about the life story of the Buddha without getting righteously pissed off and I don't want anyone to think I have no respect for Buddhism and its adherents.
What's my beef with the Buddha? Simply put, Siddhartha was a deadbeat dad. He abandoned his wife and son. I don't care that he left them in lives of supreme comfort. I don't care that he left them to go on a spiritual quest. On the PBS programme, the talking heads say things like, "Yes, his family was upset, but there can be no enlightenment without suffering. In order to gain all, you have to give up everything."
Blah blah blah. My question is: what if the Buddha had been a woman? What if Siddhartha's sister had been the one born under a great prophecy? Say that she'd been given the same sumptuous, sheltered upbringing as her brother, had a happy marriage and gave birth to a child, and then on a journey outside the palace encountered the same suffering --
-- wait! That assumes that a woman of that time and social class would even be allowed to go out travelling with no chaperone except a charioteer. I don't know enough about women's lives in that time and place, so let's just handwave and posit that a woman would be allowed to travel as freely as a man (even though it's not bloody likely).
So Siddhartha's Sister encounters age and suffering and death, and decides to become an ascetic to seek enlightenment. And with great sorrow -- nobody is saying that this was an easy or heartless decision -- she sneaks out of the palace in the dead of night, leaving her husband and child behind.
You can tell where I'm going with this, can't you? She'd have been vilified. Unnatural mother! Terrible wife! How dare she abandon her responsibilities to her family to run off like that? How could she be so SELFISH?
Do you think the great religion and philosophy of Buddhism would exist today if Siddharta had been a woman? Do you think scholars and talking heads would be excusing her behavior with such compassionate philosophical hindsight? Do you think that Siddhartha's sister would even have survived unmolested long enough to go through the arduous spiritual journey that brought Siddhartha to the Bodhi tree?
Think about it. Even in the story of one of the greatest enlightened spirits in the history of the human species, we run smack into the wall of the patriarchy.
Before he left, Siddhartha named his son Rahula, which according to some interpretations means "fetter". (Way to show the love, Dad!) I can only wonder how his wife felt. "Old ball & chain" indeed...