The Buddha is smiling

I link the Buddha with Mohammed Sadique Khan and Germaine Lindsay, the London suicide bomber, writes Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta.

When the first Indian nuclear device exploded at Pokhran, India, the scientists sent the notification message, "The Buddha is smiling" to the Indian Prime Minister. While it was touted as a Peaceful Nuclear Explosion, the fact that it was announced by referring to the Buddha made a dramatically shocking and jarring note. The Buddha - prophet of non-violence, cycle of life and death, self-sacrifice, renunciation, prayers and ultimate enlightenment, being associated with a nuclear explosive device? Shocking or what? Funnily enough, having a weird mind, which associated the strangest things together, I linked up the Buddha with Mohammed Sadique Khan and Germaine Lindsay, the London suicide bomber.

One of the most startling things that I have ever heard was when I was banging on about the Buddha and his message in front of my long-suffering wife. Who snapped at me and said, big deal - your prophet of enlightenment. He abandoned his wife and young child while he went off to attain enlightenment. Same with Laxman, who went off for 14 years with Ram and Sita, leaving his wife Urmila behind? Who has thought about Richard Lion Heart's wife who frantically spent time and energy trying to raise the ransom money for him in return for rumoured non-consummation of marriage, boorish behaviour and a very difficult life (including financial problems after his death). While I was gaping at her, she explained, each of these "hero's" are considered great for their respective faiths. The Buddha gave rise to his own religion - Buddhism, Laxman is considered to be the epitome of loyalty and filially (in terms of being the model brother) and finally Richard Lionheart - the star of so many heroic tales, the defender of Christianity, the leader of Christian crusades against the infidels, so on and so forth. What about their marriage vows, promises and responsibilities to their wives and children?

Needless to say, I was gobsmacked and intrigued. Now this was an interesting angle. We have 3 examples, each of whom are considered to be great by some or all of their co-religionists. Buddha is venerated by all, Richard Lionheart by the Christians, Laxman's statue is present with Ram and Sita and worshipped by Hindu millions while these suicide bombers are considered to be great martyrs by a certain section of the Muslim population. Nevertheless, all abandoned their families, in some cases, their little children for the sake of their religions. Interesting or what? Therefore, off I went to do a bit of digging.

Siddharth Gautam was the son of a chief of the Shakyas, a warrior tribe in India. Born into a princely family, he grew up in the lap of luxury, got married at 16 to Yashodhara and became the father to Rahul. On visiting the city outside the palace, he saw an old crippled man, a corpse, a diseased man and finally a wandering monk. It was an Eureka moment for him and thus gave rise to the concept of eternal circle of life which encompasses death, disease, pain and age. He decided to leave his wife and son, his position and riches, stealing away in the middle of the night into the wide world. Rest, as they say, is history. That is what we know as common mythology behind the early history of the Buddha. When I started researching Yashodhara, the situation became curioser and curioser. The earliest Buddhist BCE texts in the Pali Canon are silent on the matter of Yashodhara, except for one very obscure Chinese translation, which refers to Yashodhara, mother of Rahul, in a list of nuns who are known for their good deeds.

Be that as it may, it was in the later stages of Buddhist scholarship and the requirement to appeal to women, which seems to have driven the emergence of Yashodhara as a minor but significant part of Buddhist theology. You see, this included making Yashodhara going back to the Buddha and becoming a nun as did Rahul. Still, even if we go by the latter mythological treatment, we find Yashodhara spending years on her own, not knowing what happened to her husband, bringing up her near orphaned son alone.

Laxman, on the other hand, was the brother of Ram, one of the incarnations of Vishnu the Preserver. Due to various reasons, Ram was asked to go into exile for 14 years with his wife Sita. Laxman, who was married to Sita's sister, Urmila, joined Ram in his exile, leaving Urmila behind. As is with matters of faith, whatever is the real life of Laxman, the persona of Laxman has now been morphed into divinity. Hindu Gods are usually representations of natural or human forces. Laxman stands for steadfast loyalty even at terrible personal cost or taken in another way, brotherly love. Ram-Laxman is an enduring lesson for brothers in arms, love or any other form of male family relationships. Unfortunately, research on Urmila, Laxman's wife was a bit troublesome. There seems to be an Indian film actress who has the same name, and trying to locate books, papers or articles on mythological Urmila was a bit of a pain. Still, what we know is that she another personification of the ideal wife or Shakti (besides Sita). She spends 14 years of loneliness, not knowing where her husband was, but expected to suffer in silence as she did. The names of her brother in law, sister and husband are named in millions of prayers daily, but she is almost unknown.

Then lets take up the gage of Richard I, also known as the Lionheart. Richard, who by all accounts, was a unique man of his age, a strapping huge man, very interested and experienced in the martial arts, but also educated and a poet of some note. His claim to fame was his participation in the third crusade, which was motivated by the loss of Jerusalem to Saladin. So off he went to fight the infidels. On the way, he married Berengaria after lots of adventures, and even took Berengaria with him on part of his crusade. Not wanting to repeat the entire story, he went, fought, massacred, drank, conquered and slept around the holy land. His wife, on the other hand, went back home and pined for him. Once he was taken hostage by Henry VI, the Holy Roman Emperor, his mother and his wife tried their level best to raise the munificent sum of 100,000 marks as a ransom at that time. He hardly repaid his wife's efforts or loyalty, preferring to be with his boys. Richard is now well known through the aegis of the Robin Hood story, but hardly anybody knows of Berengaria, his wife. She had financial troubles after Richard died and while she wasn't exactly at the pauper's door, she had her share of troubles. So, here's the third example of a wife, who is left behind, unknown or little known, no concern about her sacrifices, while her husband takes off on religious grounds, gains wide following for his piety and services for their respective religions.

I know what could be running through your mind, it's a feminist portrayal. In many ways it is, but it is an interesting view to take. Abandoning your wife and child(ren) is a pretty drastic step to take, no? In each of these cases, the woman concerned was pretty well fixed, they were all royalty so would be reasonably comfortable. In the vast majority of cases in modern life, women who lose their husbands or if their husbands walk out, their lives are shattered. Take for example the kids of the suicide bombers who bombed London, how would they feel when they are growing up and are called as the children of a murderer? We have a welfare state here in the UK, so basic essential needs will be met and plus they will have other family members, so it should be ok, but as we have seen, the pull of religion was stronger than the pull of fatherhood or "husbandhood" and the child will grow up fatherless. If I put myself in the abandoned wife's or the orphaned child's place, I would perhaps react in the same fashion as my wife did. As for the orphaned child of the suicide bomber and the bomber himself, I came across this poignant snippet by Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

An orphan's curse would drag to hell A spirit from on high; But oh! more horrible than that Is a curse in a dead man's eye!

All this to be taken with a grain of salt!

(The opinion expressed herein are strictly the author's and do not reflect the positions, official or otherwise, of any firm or organisation, that the author is associated with at the present or has been in the past or may be in future. Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta, currently lives in the City of London and works there in various capacities in the Banking Sector.)