In answering the question appearing in the title, one cannot but disclose his understanding of Buddhism―the meaning of Shakaymuni's teaching after his enlightenment. There can be two answers, corresponding to two ways of understanding Buddhism. The ...
In answering the question appearing in the title, one cannot but disclose his understanding of Buddhism―the meaning of Shakaymuni's teaching after his enlightenment. There can be two answers, corresponding to two ways of understanding Buddhism. The one that is most commonly given is that his renunciation was motivated by a compassionate desire to rescue all the sentient beings, and this answer comes from those who understand Buddhism, not without reason, in terms of the external utility, what it can do to 'others'.
In contrast with this view, Buddhism can also be understood in terms of the internal enlightenment, what it did to Shakaymuni himself and, by the same token, what it must do to each and every one of Buddhists who profess themselves to be his followers. In this line of understanding, Shakaymuni had to renounce the palace because he had an intellectual agony that could be quenched only when he found the answers to a question, a question which was not even clearly formulated.
It is left for us to formulate the question in the light of what Shakaymuni taught after his enlightenment. One way of putting the question would be : What is the world like that we all live in, and what am I like who live in that world? This is exactly the question that the theory of education, in order to be properly so called, must raise and try to answer. Seen in this light, Shakaymuni's renunciation was motivated not so much by a compassionate desire as by an urge 'to study education'. Education shares with Buddhism the task of helping each and every one of the sentient beings to realize the best of himself in living in this world. And today's students of education have all to their advantage to study Buddhism as a part of their professional career.