A fool is a fool is a fool…..

I have read a book named-

A rose is a rose is a rose……

But yesterday I read something so wonderful that it made me to write this post-

A fool is a fool is a fool…….

Yesterday I read an article in a magazine.The magazine was nice.But the article was written by quite an insightful person.I laugh at daring of such people….people who compare Gautam Buddha with a husband trying to succeed in his business and Yashodhara with this man’s wife!Why?I would like to ask the author-Have you even felt a single line of Buddha?Have you given your hand in his hand?Do you even know what Buddha means?Do you know on which path Buddha walked?What this path dealt with?What was Buddha’s totality?Lives are insufficient to understand Buddha and people writing in a college magazine have started criticizing him.I cannot tolerate……

Buddha is one of the persons I love most.Buddha  was the one who has walked and encountered highest peaks of totality.Buddha is the one who has traveled the most difficult path.But people have nothing to with this.No one is ready to sit at a place and meditate on Buddha.But they think that they are mature enough to comment.Mature enough to criticize Buddha in a college magazine which 3000 students will read.The whole humanity is playing this game with Masters.They feel quite uplifted by thinking that they have found a fault in Buddha.A fault in a man to which whole humanity considers perfect.But this only shows that how fool you are.Buddha has got the position which no one can reach.But now I understand the meaning of phrase “Laughing Buddha”.Buddha must be laughing after reading the article.He is such a lovely person.He will not even be angry or sad after reading that bogus article,he will just laugh.And yes,it is worth laughing only.That is what i I am doing while typing this post.

Siddhartha leaving his home was a divine plan.Not a future plan of some office going engineer.The impact of what Buddha saw was so subtle,that even if Buddha would have stayed at home,it would not have helped Yashodhara in any way.This is not a general story of a man running behind his carrier.This is story of eternal quest.I would advice author that first understand what eternal quest means……how it feels when you have it within….what walking on a Razor’s edge means…..then if you are in a position of criticizing Buddha,do it………….






13 responses to “A fool is a fool is a fool…..”

  1. sarang kulkarni Avatar
    sarang kulkarni

    Actually i feel that the peoeple are not that much mature to understsnd the things to their real depth.The things and persons such like Gautah Budha is not the subject of such a fruitless talkings…..yes talkings only because such prople are not concern with the real deep meaning of such a beautiful things and without any knowledge they continue such useless talkings. There should be some system to stop such fruitlees and missguiding things from publishing. This should be openely forwarded to everyone so that they will understand what things are taking place and how they are missguiding…


  2. vineet bhat Avatar
    vineet bhat

    literature is the field where taking untravelled paths to community level where unaware people can experience the strength of almighty.history has such numerable experiences.nana phadanvis,everyone know him for his excellence in diplomacy.then also a great writer like vijay tendulkar used that historical character for an unusual symbolic characterization of a supremacy using ghashiram kotwal as his puppet and giving us the message of that time situations in cold war.similarly resuntly we know what happened with anand yadav….most of the intellectuals are accepting what anand yadav has written,because the book,though on the tukaram,it was not a comment on tukaram but in stead it is against the ‘lordification’ of a strong devotee of almighty….
    many examples we get where such metaphor is done.such metaphors are heart,no, they are soul of literature……so all are accepting the greatness of lord gautam buddha,but literature has its value,even more than the sentiments because literature is a art and artisns are more near to almighty and it is more precious always………
    some about the artical :the travel from siddharth to buddha is totaly based on the experiences of siddharth while looking at the world for first time in his life.so we can say that siddharth has more analytical power than yashodhara since yashodhara has seen the same world many a times before.now let me tell u that in that age leaving home for preaching is not considered a liked one thing as it was bofore{refer rajwade,sarkar,d.kosambi}.
    so itwas bit natural that she must have got tensed with the home leaving siddharth.it is also the fact that when buddha return to home, yashodhara become student to him.but in between she must be in worry.that period of yashodharas mood is colored in the given artical……….

    1. Mandar Karanjkar Avatar
      Mandar Karanjkar

      What you said is totally correct…no one here is doing any lordification of Gautam Buddha.What Buddha suffered in his life,it cant be spoken.Through what hells he passed,cannot be spoken.He was not running blindly behind anything…..anything like success……he was just drowned…….is it right to compare a man of this caliber with a husband running behind carrier?you say it is against lordification of Buddha……to go against Buddha you should know him totally……can you claim that you know him totally?i can……

  3. Mandar Karanjkar Avatar
    Mandar Karanjkar

    And one more point……Nana fadnavis and all those people you mentioned were just wordly people…running behind worldly pleassures……whereas Buddha had all these things at his feet….decisions taken by these people are not theirs….they are compelled to take them as they are slaves of their desires,egos…..whereas Buddha’s decision is not the same case….Vineet understand that finding faults in such people has been a good timepass of people…..understand that Buddha may not be perfect…..nobody is………but this tendancy is wrong….humanity has troubled all masters a lot…..tortured them a lot…..now please stop this……and the person who has not understood meaning of Buddha’s single word wrote this……..she has no right……

  4. vineet bhat Avatar
    vineet bhat

    ok iam understanding what u are telling.but i want to tell u about the authencity of artical.the artical is comparision between yashodhara and the mother in artical and not between buddha and the bussinessmen..e.g.if someone compare one with shivaji thats not mean that, that persons mother is compared with jijabai.
    i understand ur view but u really think that these great people are tortured or is it possible??????
    i just want to say that i have read the artical and i liked it as an art form not as an word of philosophy and more than that it itself is a philosophy of some people so i dont want to comment on ‘it’……

  5. Mandar Karanjkar Avatar
    Mandar Karanjkar

    this comparison cannot be done……totally baseless…..it is impossible to torture these people because for them nothing like torture exists…..but this tendency of people…..i oppose it……..philosophy of every person is respected……but philosophy should shut up when topic comes to mystics…….

  6. anamik Avatar

    While searching for some interesting blogs and articles, I came across this blog. It was a bit nice experience reading articles here. But I didn’t find it appropriate to comment. But as the concerned articles (although one of them I haven’t read,) are concerned, I would like to put some light on it.
    As we all well know, Buddha left home in search of treasure that awaited for him, which he made available to other humans who were in search of peace and harmony. And he successfully did it as well. He received nirvana and he conveyed the knowledge to others. (its an entirely different question that how much others grasped it but anyways…) the greatness that Buddha achieved is out of question. Here the question is about compairing Buddha and a businessman (and not about who compares it I guess ) so I think keeping the aims both had in their mind aside, we can compare both. Reason being the zeal both possess towards achieving their respective goal, the qualification both had (I presume the businessman who is described in the other article is sufficiently qualified.). so, comparing both and role of their respective wives in their career, I feel that it is wise enough to compare their roles in their personal and marital life.
    Although I am not trying to compare Buddha with anyone, but I cant forbid myself from mentioning example of tukaram (I presume being marathi, u raware of tukaram and yes marathi doesnot refers to any current meanings.). tukaram also laid the path for those who were suffering and in a far too dangerous environment that Buddha which I think u will agree as well with. Still, tukaram didn’t felt the urge to leave his home although his wife was a little-bit opposite to his view. He could have as well left home and would have went outside. But he didn’t.
    Consider another example. ramdas who knew that his aim was not to get married and that he was soon going to get bored of it, left the mandap of his marriage well before getting married. He could’ve as well got married and later would’ve left home in search for peace. But he didn’t as we was aware of it. So, shall we presume that Buddha the great was unaware of what he was doing? No, we cant. But we can think of his life in a different perspective, In the perspective of yashodhara, his wife as well. The question is not about help that Buddha’s presence would have made to yashodhara but its about his presence which is socially important.
    To conclude with, I feel that one should always search for different views about a person, especially when the person has so much impact on history of society and religion like Buddha, Christ, shankaracharya because they are prisms which diffract the light coming from the divine (or whatever u’ld like to call it…) to the common man. Hence, u cant quote which aspect may appeal which fellow. No view is completely acceptable as well as totally condemnable as neither the author is complete nor the critics. And that should not be criticized the way it has been done presently. Although I feel awkward to comment this way as I am unaware of the kind of relation u and the concerned author share but I find more of personal prejudices coming on canvas than rational thoughts which contradict to the way other articles on this blog have been written.
    Although, a lot is to be written but time is a limit so I’ll d it later.
    Thanks for ur concern and best wishes for future of blog.

    1. Mandar Karanjkar Avatar
      Mandar Karanjkar

      Dear anamik,
      you have given a great deal of thought to the question.BUT i like to bring some points to your notice
      1.You said about Tukaram,who was handling both at a same time.Please note that journey on the path of mysticism is like bird flying without leaving a single foot print.No two persons have attained enlightenment through a same way.This way may be suitable for tukaram but may not be for Buddha.If a single way was sufficient,why different types of people are attracted towards different masters?This way was not destined for Buddha.Buddha needed a big deal of efforts,aloneness,meditations.He cannot be blamed for it.
      2.World is quite biased toward mystics.Let us consider an example.Pandit Bhimsen Joshi ran away from his house for his quest of music.He was a piller of his father,but he ran away without even thinking about them,about his mother,her tender heart and all that.Today,it is told quite with proud that he ran away from his home.Now,Yashodhara was a queen.She had all the wealth and stabilty.So,why only Buddha to be blamed?Now a days,husbands and wives remain in different countries and dont meet for years.But this is being tolerated because it is done for money.Now,here no one complains because the money coming out of this separation.I want to ask,if it is fine to be separate for money,then why not for eternal quest?
      3.I would like to remind you of one poem of Kabir in which he says that every one here is being ground in a floor mill,I cry for this.Yashodhara attained the Buddhahood after being initiated by Buddha.If he had not ran away,what would be the end?i am interested in end.In life there is misery.Even if Buddha had not ran away,the life of Yashodhara was going to be a misery.Due to Buddha,the misery was relieved.The buisinessman in article,after running would earn money,prestige and all that…can he ever solve misery of himself??solving misery of his wife is a far away question……..Buddha ran way it may be same like businessman but the end differs…..Buddha resurrected his wife unlike the businessman.As far as my own experience is concerned,this is eternal quest.we rise or hide issues according to how they suit us.The author of the article had her own purposes which know quite well.The point to be considered is that,Buddha stopped the wheel not only for him but for thousands of people among then one was the Yashodhara.I would like to conclude that Yashodhara was not unlucky like wife of Ramdas Swami who alone completed the journey without taking his wife with him or unlucky like wife of Tukaram who was with him throughout her life but could not transform herself,but really a fortunate and a blessed one whose life was transformed by Buddha’s grace.
      Think over it.thanks a lot for replying.you are most welcome to comment further,share further.

      1. anamik Avatar

        dear mandar,
        initially sorry for late reply but replying in hesitation and getting wront point conveyed is the least thing i expect from myself.
        seems like you have mistaken what i have said. i haven’t quoted anywhere anywhere that the path Buddha traveled was a wrong one. as you said, there can be many paths. but as per i feel, the one point which buddha missed and which should be treated as his guilt is his attitude towards yashodhara,his wife. you quoted about bhimsen and his father but i would like to remind you that Although, bhimsen left his home, but he had brothers and sisters [sorry as donot have the exact details of their family.]to look after his father. but whereas for yashodhara, buddha was a single husband.
        you quoted that being a princess yashodhar had all what she needed and presence of buddha would’ve done her no added profit. but i think if we assume yashodhara to be a human being then this argument automatically fails. we have seen various people even grown-ups in search of someone to share their life with. even bhimsen married second time at the age of 70. [it has got nothing to do with bhimsen i just want to say that even the most educated-hope u wont take it in literal sense- minds cannot leave the demand of having someone of their own.]. if a man like bhimsen of such a great caliber can ask for a partner at the age of 70, then demand of yashodhara to have her husband with her -especially when she had a small child with her- is perfectly acceptable. you quote that in today’s era wife and husband live away from each other, but i need not explain you the difference between living physically apart (although they are in contact thanks to modern technology which was absent in buddha’s era) and taking sanyasa and leaving the married life forever are two entirely different things. just recall what was condition of rukminibai -mother of dnyaneshwar- when vitthalpant would’ve left him. the question is not of physical presence but it is of the psychological advantage the woman has in presence of her husband. i am saying that guilt of buddha is that he married yashodhara although he was aware that his path no longer allows him to get into sansara. although ramdas didnt attend nirvana unlike buddha but he had the rightful vision to judge his path was not for sansara but yoga or whatever you call it. the second guilt of buddha was that although he married, he didnt carried out the duties of being a husband. his way wasnt wrong to himself or to others but to yashodhara and partly to rahul. tukaram did enjoyed (?) married life, but he carried out all the duties of being a husband till his last breath he had on earth. and one more point i would like to mension that what you have written as “unlucky like wife of Ramdas Swami who alone completed the journey without taking his wife with him” is entirely wrong. ramds swami didnt married the proposed girl rather he fled from the place and the girl was later married to someone else (but not ramdas swami). so ramdas swami was unmarried. you quote yashodhara later accepted buddhism which is true, but did she got herself transformed? like many other followers of buddha she became the one who ran on the track which buddha had walked on and eventually never reached the place where buddha reached. the guild that yashodhar couldnt complete the journey doesnot belong to buddha but what i feel is she neither got the enjoyment of samsara nor nirvana. so buddha is a guilty to her. the point which author wanted to raise would’ve been the role of ladies in the society is always been as the shadow of her male companion which has supports throughout the history of indian and many civilisations. so when one woman looks into past, she can literally find several examples of many others like her whos life was became a misery due to aims of their male companions. there are many examples like jethai, the princes of yadavas who was forced to marry alauddin khilji by her father, the princes of jaypur state have been freuent victims of this kind of sacrifice. so when one woman sacrifices her life for development of her companion when she looks back and sees these several examples which lie here and there, she obviously couldnt resist to compare her with others like her who did the same for their companions.
        hope you will think over these points before your next reply.

        1. Mandar Karanjkar Avatar
          Mandar Karanjkar

          Dear Anamik,there are some very basic misconceptions in what you have written.
          Fisrtly,you have written “i am saying that guilt of buddha is that he married yashodhara although he was aware that his path no longer allows him to get into sansara.”You are absolutely wrong.Buudha had no idea upto the moment he ran away that he was going to step on such path.So,read the story of Buddha Thoroughly.Buddha had no idea of his path at the time of marriage.He was too much affected by what he saw and its impact was so deep that even if Buddha would have remained at home it would be of no use….he was just transformed by seeing the things.
          Your second blunder is that you say-“the guild that yashodhar couldnt complete the journey doesnot belong to buddha but what i feel is she neither got the enjoyment of samsara nor nirvana.”So, please read the biography of Yashodhara.She not only walked the path ogf Buddha BUT WAS ENLIGHTENED.So,how can you say that she could not enjoy completely the Nirwana?Enlightenment is the complete bliss….so your this point is also wrong…..what did wife of Ramdas or Tukaram attained?Wife of Tukaram could not even do a good Sansara….Let us hope wife of Ramdas did it….now tell me who is lucky one?one who did good sansara or one who ataained Nirwana?I repeat that I am absolutely right when I say that Yashodhara was really a blessed one.On the path of enlightenment,one has to suffer a lot…..sufffering is just a medium which wakes you up.Yashodhara suffered due to Buddha.But you know,we are all just suffering…..due to various reasons.thats why we have this eternal quest within.Yashodhara suffered…..if Buddha would have not ran away,there would have been other reasons…..so,Buddha is not guilty and Yashodhara was not a victim of Buddha’s passion but one who was blessed due to Buddha’s grace.
          one more point.You have not read the article.The flavour of article is also the same that woman is always a victim of male passion.That is true,BUT NOT IN THE CASE OF BUDDHA.The problem of Buddha and Yashodhara is not a male-female problem,but it is a problem arising due to conflict between bonding and eternal thirst.I can give you numerous examples of women saints who also ran away from families.This problem is conflict between this bonding and thirst.Naturally when someone starts the journey over this path,family,society tries to pull him back……due to love,bonding,care or anything.But when author without even understanding all this,compares this conflict with that in between a husband and wife and then relates the whlole story to woman burried under male passion,it really hurts.I know,women are victims….but not at all in Buddha’s case.I will again say,read the story of Buddha…….be absorbed in it…..consider all the factors…..think….this is not a story of woman being burried under male passion but story of conflict between bonding and the eternal quest….
          waiting for reply……..

  7. Mandar Karanjkar Avatar

    The fellow has not replied yet…..

  8. bhausaheb ajabe-patil Avatar
    bhausaheb ajabe-patil

    no doubt women all over the world have suffered a lot. and of course there are number of examples of great thinkers being against women one way or other eg plato,aristotle,tulsidas.
    perhaps prince sidharth was patriarchal however when he became budhha he just can not be..rather the path to enlightenment that he discovered is one of the ways for women(and men also) to reach nirvana.and as we all know his wife too reached nirvana.it means this path is the ultimate way for women to free themselves from all miseries. without this understanding if somebody compares budhha with businessman it shows her ignorance. and it is deplorable because it misrepresents budhha which is not in the interest of humanity. if that ignorant author understands what budhha is then will she know budhha is the light capable of bringing about ultimate empowerment call it godliness or bliss or nirvana in the lives of all women.
    so finally i would say mandar is right in his fierce opposition to said article. i would advise mandar to give that author some good book preferentially by beloved osho on budhha so that hopefully she would realise the truth!

Leave a Reply