No_Mind wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2018 2:50 amI kept culture and nationality out of it till he/she forced me to reply using "cultural appropriations".
No. You have been culturally appropriating from the beginning by accusing others of culturally appropriating your 2500 year old Indian culture when they try to give a historical outsider's perspective and making references to what they think or believe or have heard about ancient Indian social mores, and said that no one should dare to do such a thing - except for yourself: citing
sannya customs and how abandoning one's wife should be done correctly to not fall into sin etc... (because it is "your" culture)
Of course you did not say what you think about those sannya customs and if you think they are indeed unquestionable moral standards. (But it seems to me you almost regard them as such, and maybe think that anyone who would abandon his wife should be judged by these rather rigid standards - but I'm not sure about that. And you deny any other interpretations of how morally acceptable or unacceptable
in the eyes of the world [or that culture] would or might have been, when they only come as auxiliary arguments to try to support from another angle
one's own point of view by crying "cultural appropriation!" -
That is cultural appropriation.)
No_Mind wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 4:29 am
Reading about
us cannot make you understand
us. What is exotic to you (man leaving wife and son in middle of the night in search of enlightenment) is a mundane story to me.
"man leaving wife and son in middle of the night ..."
That is not exotic at all.
"... in search of enlightenment"
That maybe yes. But it's not necessarily changing how morally acceptable or unacceptable the act of leaving clandestine in the middle of the night is. (If it ever happened in that way. The suttas tell about the bodhisatta's weeping parents when he shaved his head and went away in a robe. No mention of his wife and her reaction, and if she was informed before the fact or not. Maybe she was not. And I would not even necessarily see that as wrong. It could have been the least harmful way.)
My own point of view, without reference to what is morally right or wrong in the eyes of the world in that culture back then in India, is that I see nothing morally wrong with it, given the circumstance that his wife and son could be expected to be well taken care of.
You seem to automatically assume that anyone who would not see such an act as inherently morally reprehensible could only do so by way of an excuse like "but he was to become the Buddha", "but the culture back then (... of which I don't know anything first-hand, but nevertheless...) might/would have seen it as acceptable". People may try to bring such perspectives into play to underpin their own point of view. And yes, I do think that the fact that his quest was for enlightenment has much weight. But I don't think that the morality or immorality of that act hinges solely on such an attenuating circumstance. I think that leaving a relationship, suddenly and unexpectedly, but in circumstances where one does not need to worry that the others are not well taken care of, is not morally wrong. Simple as that.
(I'm signing off for today. I think you might do good to try clarifying what exactly is inherently morally wrong with a husband leaving his wife (possibly without notice) when he knows she will be well taken care of -
without reference to social mores of a specific culture. That's just what I think you should think about and clarify for yourself. But of course you can think whatever you think is right to think.
I have nothing more to add to this argument.
)