As many of you likely know, the name of the Buddha was Siddhartha Gautama (last name varies from place to place). He was the son of King Suddhodana and Queen Mayadevi of the Sakya tribe in India. What I am curious about is why Hesse chose Gotama as the name of the Buddha and Siddhartha as the name of the main character in the book. He seems to have broken the Buddha into two different characters. Siddhartha's life in the book, by no coincidence, I'm sure, closely mirrors the Buddha's own life. Buddha was born into a rich, Brahaman family. He was seen as a holy person from a very young age. He rejected the life of ease and comfort in his father's garden to pursue the life of an ascetic. Upon living as an ascetic came, on his own, to his "Middle Path". The best I can come up with is the seemingly (in my mind anyway) central theme of the story, in that you can not teach or learn wisdom, you must find it on your own, by way of your own path. Buddha taught "kill your parents, kill your god, kill your teacher". He always came back to the notion that you should not believe what anyone teaches you unless you have experienced it on your own and it makes reasonable sense to you. However, there is an inherent contradiction in teaching people to reject the notion of being taught. It seems to me that Hesse split the Buddha into two characters in order to most clearly demonstrate that Buddha's Dhamma can't be taught to people. Gotama is Buddha, so is Siddhartha. This is why in Chapter 3 Siddhartha walked away from the Buddha. Hesse made Siddhartha walk away from the Buddha, not to point out a flaw in his teachings, but to clearly exemplify the flawlessness of the Dhamma, while drawing attention to the necessary self-contradictory nature of attempting to teach the Dhamma. The Dhamma is perfect knowledge, which can lead to perfect wisdom, but not through the teachings of anyone else, including the Buddha. What do you think?
I think it was to lend the authority of holiness (or the potential of enlightenment) to both chracters i.e the buddha and the books central character As the central theme of the book I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head here. The example of Siddhartha's childhhood friend (his name escapes me) also demonstrates the difference between following dogma as oppossed to realisation of truth through the pratical application of your own spirtual path.
The concepts this great book emphasizes are basically what you just said. Everyone has a different idea or view of what enlightenment/heaven/paradise should be, so that rationally leads to the fact that there is no ONE way to reach/attain heaven/enlightenment/paradise, everyone must find their own. Remarkably Simple, Remarkably Beautiful. Arcamilus
I believe the duality has something to do with the Jungian concept of the two parts of the psyche (male/female) contributing to the balanced personality.
It seemed that it could have been done to give the reader the feeling that the Buddha's enlightenment was not exclusive to the buddha and can be experienced by others as well, i.e., to show the enlightenment at the human level as opposed to something that happens to a "diety", or unique case of some sort. It is also possible that the two "characters" can actually be read as two separate characters, one being the buddha, the other not the same buddha. I liked the line about the river of time flowing backwards past us.
Hesse does indeed split the Buddha into two beings to depict an apparent yet simultaneously self-righteous irony in Gautama's teachings. He says not to follow anything, yet if you follow him, you are not following his teachings. It's like telling yourself, "Dont tell me what to do." It is this contradiction that Hesse focuses on, and even though this paradox exists in Buddhism, it does not discredit Buddhist teachings. It is in that paradox the the true beauty of Buddhism is manifested. Hesse realized this apparent contradiction and cleverly wrote "Siddhartha" to show this even if he did it subliminally. Arc
Siddhartha was trying to find the right way to lead his life. First time around he didn't understand why he had to starve himself and give up comforts of life so he leaves that life and trys many other lives because that is what people do. Hesse was trying to prove everybody must follow their own path the way they think they should and he was also saying even the Budda was human and had to make decisions and choices even if wrong at first to get to the right one.
Its just Siddartha's way of offering advice to people the way he learned it by saying you should experience things on your own rather then believe what somebody else taught you. It says Budda's dhamma can't be taught is because you have to follow your own path meaning what you think is right even if wrong at first to get to the right and truthful path for you before experiencing Budda's dhamma if that is what you were really seeking and was making an effort to understand.
Raven .... if hesse was teaching about the perils of teaching the Dhamma (to the point that there were perils in being even taught by Buddha himself), wouldn't hesse be guilty of the crime he is trying to indicate - and for that matter wouldn't you be guilty of it also, after all you are teaching that hesse was teaching that buddha was teaching that it is wrong to teach the damma. I mean if you were really convinced of what you are indicating you would have nothing to do with teaching dhamma at all and would write nothing about it ...
One Raven: " Buddha taught "kill your parents, kill your god, kill your teacher". He always came back to the notion that you should not believe what anyone teaches you unless you have experienced it on your own and it makes reasonable sense to you. However, there is an inherent contradiction in teaching people to reject the notion of being taught...The Dhamma is perfect knowledge, which can lead to perfect wisdom, but not through the teachings of anyone else, including the Buddha. What do you think?" I agree. So called 'spiritual' knowledge swallowed whole without any specific experience and without critique leads to followers of doctrine, dogma and rhetoric, not an actual experience of enlightenment or transcendence but this doesn't mean rejection of all former (taught) knowledge. The religious philosophy doesnt suggest not learning how to read and write in favor of coming up with ones own individual language. In short it doesnt reject learning what is needed to live in the 'material' world.
what is thought here I think is that one should not be dependant on some other authority. Be responsible. This is not to say that you should avoid help but rather to be extremely attentive to what is happening when you put faith in something, someone. So is buddha talking to himself in the story?
But the point is that "don't trust authority" also comes from an authority - in other words in operates out of the same paradigm that it is seeking to dismantle
