Tne End


Can anyone please share his/her explanation about the end of this movie? I talk about the scene in which Tashi's wife Pema appeared before him, delivered her monologue and then disappeared. She dropped in front of him the bundle with the box with food she usually prepared for him when he used to go to Leh to sell the corn. But when I watched the film for the second time I think I saw Tashi preparing this bundle himself before leaving his wife and son at night. So, this time I wondered, was Tashi just imagining Pema? Was this just a result of his own conscience? Because he clearly felt guilty for leaving her and his son...

reply

When Tashi looked both ways longside the wall and saw nobody there, that was to suggest that his wife's monologue had been only a vision. He cried torn between his spiritual and earhtly love, but finally found peace. We saw him approach and re-read the question which was hanging over during the the movie. The answer supported his decision: His love for his wife and child would be his way to enlightenment - or that was my understanding.

reply

I agree with what you've written.
Still... I remebered that when Tashi's wife appeared in front of him, there was a horse beside her. So she may have rode on the horse to meet him and that is why she arrived first on the spot.
Maybe the director made the scene ambiguous in order to makes us think about it and discuss it the way we do! Everything is so much more interesting when we're not told "this is white" or "this is black" but we have to decide for ourselves.

reply

We saw him approach and re-read the question which was hanging over during the the movie. The answer supported his decision

...or did it?
The question "how can you stop a drop of water from disappearing?" first struck Tashi on his was back to the monastery after three years of mediation.
The answer given when he considered returning to the monastery from life's other extreme: many years of family life.
but the answer seems to me typically paradoxical: throwing the drop of water into the sea does not stop it from disappearing: it may still be water, but it is not longer a drop.

reply

I just saw the movie dubbed in Hungarian. In this version the drop of water "evaporates", "dries", the question is about saving from "dessication". The context given, that is quite different from "disappearing".
I wonder what the original meaning is...

reply

According to Buddhism the most important issue is intention. If our intention is to provide happiness for one or two sentient beings, then the momentum of that intention comes to an end with the fulfillment of that goal - it's like a small drop of water that soon evaporates. If our intention is to provide happiness for all sentient beings, then the momentum of that intention goes on building and building towards that larger goal - every drop of compassion we generate collects and gathers until it becomes a huge sea (according to Buddhists over many lifetimes). If we set a ball rolling in a small space, it will soon come to a halt. If we set it rolling in an infinite space, its momentum will continue building. The goal of a Buddhist monk is to relieve the suffering of all sentient beings, so to choose to become a monk is to choose to direct the intention towards this enormous objective. Perhaps Tashi realised that, however much he wanted to give love and happiness to his family, that love and happiness could only be limited and short-lived - by becoming a monk he could hope to give the same love and happiness to infinite beings also suffering terribly.

reply

David,

"The goal of a Buddhist monk is to relieve the suffering of all sentient beings, so to choose to become a monk is to choose to direct the intention towards this enormous objective." - davidedwards1

I believe the main goal of a Buddhist monk/nun is the renunciation of worldly lives in order to gain his/her own enlightenment. Along the way, they strive to become a spiritual teacher like the original Buddha.

But the responsibility and ability to reach enlightenment or relieve one's suffering is one's own. Any monks who try to relieve the suffering of all sentient beings are taking an insurmountable task that's not his/her to begin with.

A Boddhisatva, in a Mahayana's description, might be closer to the persona you've stated earlier. What do you think?

Cheers.

reply

Hi Akira
I am a bit late haha. Just watched this beautiful movie. I hope you dont mind me to share my little opinion related to your letter.
I think that you are right that David should mention Mahayana practitioner, because not all Buddhist monks choose their way to liberation through this motivation to remove suffering of all sentient beings.
Theravada monks for example follow the path of self liberation.
Regarding Mahayana monks. Tashi was Tibetan Mahayana monk and for Mahayana monks the most important motivation is to become a Buddha in order to benefit all sentient beings. Bodhisattva is a being who already experienced or developed Bodhicitta, a special altruistic mind which wishes to Become a Buddha for the benefit of all sentient beings. So each Mahayana monk, nun or lay practitioner practice with this motivation. This Bodhicitta mind is of two types aspirational and ultimate. There is no way that practitioner can become a Bodhisattva without going through gradual path. One of the steps on the path is to awaken this altruistic mind within ones midstream and this is gradual work. First practitioner meditate on compassion, love, equanimity and gradually by wishing those minds to become cause of awakening in order to benefit others this seed of Bodhicitta is growing. I think Tashi was already experienced monk, actually a Lama who probably developed this mind.
So I agree with you that main goal of Theravada monks is renunciation but main goal of Mahayana practitioners is to awaken that mind of enlightenment which is Bodhicitta a direct cause to become Bodhisattva.
What do you think?
Love and Prayers
Radek

reply

"how can you stop a drop of water from disappearing?"

Freeze it.

Its still a drop of water, only solid--ice counts as water.

reply

This is really interesting talk... But one thing I still am not getting...

donnna, you said: "The answer supported his decision: His love for his wife and child would be his way to enlightenment - or that was my understanding."
How did that answer support that decision? I can't see how that's an answer...

He did struggle between the two choices, that was clear, and whether his wife appearing was real or not, he considered both options. But what did he choose and how did the question and answer have anything to do with it? I wanna know!

And even if the movie was supposed to be left a little ambiguous, and the end's not clear, I still can't understand the question.

reply

I think this ending deals with the buddhist idea that all our experience is a dream; that as soon as a moment has passed it's as real as a dream, hence his time with his wife is over, she vanishes into the fog, just as a dream ends. The only way to hold onto his time with his wife (the drop of water) is to not dwell it as his one true reality. Life is one big ever changing ocean, one big dream of which we sometimes stop to taste a drop at a time. She is angry because her dream with him is ending and she has no control over that. He is sad because the wheels have turned and it's time for him to do something else, but this has hurt the people he loves. The monks he left behind were also hurt when he left to experience life. We are destined to experience suffering yet we create our own sorrow. The meaning of the title...samsara...the changing nature of the universe. Nothing is constant but change.

reply

As I see it Tashi could not cope with his guilt after Pema caught him having a fling with Sujata. This guilt compounded itself into humiliation when Pema expressed an indifference to what Tashi had done. Remember a laughing Sujata saying to a panicing Tashi, when Pema unexpectedly returned home, " Don't worry we (Sujata & Pema) expected this would happen".
He would have felt totally powerless towards Pema, his dented pride inducing a self indulgent loathing of himself, unable to cope with himslf he returns to the monastry to a life of austerity and self punishment.
At the end Pema intercepts Tashi with the offer of him being able to return back home, and retake up his responsibilities of caring for his child/family etc. This is when Pema speaks about what Buddha left behind when he to walked out on his wife and son, for a life of self indulgent austerity.
Unable to swallow his pride Tashi continues his return to the monastry. The bundle with the box, was Pema returning to Tashi the personal keep sakes he had given her in the early days of their relationship. She was washing her hands of him expressing a total contempt towards his weakness.
Tashi return's to the Monastry, the same way as the drop of water returns to the river.

reply

[deleted]

wow so many interesting interpretations, great reading it. For me I think what pema tells tashi is that whatever salvation he is looking for can also be achieved perhaps without being a monk. Buddha left his wife and son like a drop of water out of ocean, and his sacrifice is no bigger than his wife who also could have done the same and discarded the family but chooses to be in the social world and perhaps give equal scarifices, and she perhaps is the drop in the ocean. What is feel about the drop of water analogy is that salvation can perhaps best acheived by giving scarifices in the social world. Thats my take.

reply

I think that the Buddhist interpretation of "samsara" is that of a state of illusion (or delusion), leading to the continual cycle of death and re-birth, as opposed to a state of "nirvana" or enlightenment, and peace. That's the point of the movie - Tashi is born to a spiritual life as a monk, entering a three year trance, but then succumbs to the temptation of a sensual life. After his adultery, he decides to return to the spiritual life, but meets Pema on the way (who I think is real, not a vision). After her stirring monologue, he decides to return to her and their son (he decides, Pema doesn't invite him), at which point she drops the travelling box into his lap. The message is clear - you ain't coming back, buddy. This is why he wails at the end - he's stuck in the state of samsara, torn between his desires for enlightenment and sensuality, in a state of conflict. Hence the message from his dead master - is it more important to satisfy a thousand desires, or conquer just one. The path to enlightenment is in the latter, and Tashi finally understands it.

By the way, I watched this on cable, and that statement from the master seems to be mistranslated, to "is it more important to satisfy a thousand desires, or is just the one more important?" It seems to lose a lot of its power.

Definitely one of the best films I've seen, for the clarity of its presentation of the human condition.

reply

Im so happy that all of you're discussing one of the most amazing end ever in cinema. Samsara is a masterpiece. For me Tashi should become like drop of water and throw himself in the Samsara which is the Ocean. That way he will not dry up. He must find his enlightenment while living in the world and not by renouncing it. Did you notice that through out the film director was preparing us for this hypnotic 'circular' end? Eagle circles, we come back three time to the solitary tree, twice to the same spot in the river, twice the Mani-wall, twice the stone, Sujata love scene goes round n round! Prayer wheels and bells remind us of circular motions and finally in the end Pema turns around Tashi... Samsara is a circle, liberation from this circle is Enlightenment.

reply

I did'nt notice that Sophie, the notion never occurred to me...well pointed out. On my next watching of it I'll point that out to whomever it is I'm watching it with...

reply

The notion of a circular motion of life is an incredibly perceptive one. It seems that that is where Tashi is bound, in an endless circle of spiritual and sensual desire. He can't decide in which realm he belongs, and so he's in a state of Samsara. But what should he do? He has conflicting responsibilities to the Buddha, to his wife and child, and to himself. Aren't we all in that state? How should we become like "drops of water and throw ourselves into the ocean?" This amazing film asks so many questions ( and so do you!).

reply

Loved the movie and love reading the thoughts about it from all of you.

Erm, I just wanted to say that ;-)

reply

Wow, really great to see such enlightened souls here give more meaning to an end that puzzled me a lot. I think I will agree with sophie and eucalyptus. Remember the old man that wasn't speaking? He showed pictures of love, but he too showed the other side of love; the act of procreation leads to a circle of life and death. You must either accept this samsara or truly strive for enlightenment, whereby you place yourself outside of the circle.

reply

I think that the riddle alludes to the fact that one must study Buddhist teachings but also take them out into the real world.

The "drop of water" is the Buddhist nature of an individual, in order to keep it from drying out the individual must take the teachings and apply them in daily life.

The movie avoids extremes, by showing the importance of both learning the teachings (living in the monastery) and living life while practicing the teachings.

Like someone mentioned previously, procreation led to the monks in the first place, so it is not right to abstain from sex for life because this is selfish and narrow-minded, but it is also not right to let sex control you.

The movie is very open ended and lets people decide on the meaning for themselves following the Buddhas teaching: “Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason.”

reply

Three's a lot of 'feel good' interpretations here - but I actually interpreted it very differently.

Life is suffering.

He made the mistake of leaving the monastary and becoming attached. In the end I thought he simply realised his mistake, realised the suffering it caused, and learned a big lesson from it. He was suffering from the pain (as were his family), but he knew what he had to do to get back on the path.

reply

I think you have it down. One thing though that should be cleared up. Samsara is not a cycle in any way. The word means a stream, a raging stream (which is cool to know because the river scenes mean so much more knowing that). It is a state of suffering from desire and ignorance but there's no "cycle of reborn" just the continuation of death and birth. Because you are never reborn as the same person, you are always something different every time. I agree with the "conquering one desire" is the path to enlightenment, but I don't believe in desire being the root of suffering, it is ignorance. The ignorance that there is a Self and that somehow satisfying one desire will lead to the end of desire.

reply

OK - how about this interpretation of a deliberately obscure ending...

Tashi never did marry Pema or have their son. The whole of the movie, from the time he walked into the river to the time he walked out again may have simply been an illusory lesson. He never did stop being a monk!

reply

Yes, in the tradition of the Buddhist vision of life as Maya (am illusion), it could be as you say....

reply

Wow, I didn't even consider there were other ways to read it, but now I'm questioning what I saw as the meaning of the film.

This film, ironically, pointed out the great flaw in Buddhism as I see it. Up until last night (when I saw it for the first time), I had a lingering doubt about the validity of a philosophy/religion who's founder abandoned his wife and child so that HE could find enlightenment.

Well, I can find no justification for this, and here's why:

Any religion that requires a hierarchy, i.e.: a laity and 'monk' or 'priestly' class (which covers just about every major religion in the world), puts its followers into what is deemed a 'higher' category and a 'lower'. In Buddhism, man (now person) who is not 'ready' to give up being a husband or father or homemaker is considered a 'layman' and not capable of being fully enlightened. To the best of my knowledge, the Buddhist monk (the 'higher' class) must remain chaste for life. So, like the Catholic priest who forgoes sex to better 'serve' god, the monk avoids sex to better achieve Nirvana.

Hmm...how convenient for the monk. And what of the rest of us, who have to live through the 'suffering' or married life and intercourse in order to perpetuate the species--the very actions that allowed the monk to be born in the first place; all so that he could cut himself off from the cycle and 'wake up' to the real world.

I've heard a Buddhist teacher in California describe marriage, sex, homosexuality all as different forms of suffering. He sees himself as 'above' it (my interpretation).

Well, here's what I think: in some schools of Buddhist thought (Mahayana Buddhism, I believe), the compassionate and correct act of a bodhisattva is to delay enlightenment by returning the 'real world' and helping other people achieve enlightenment. (I agree with this philosophy. The poor person who wins the lottery 'should' find a way to bring his old neighborhood up with him, not simply move to the hills and live in a mansion.)

Now, is the monk who cuts himself off from the city and confines himself to a monastery, avoiding human touch, avoiding marriage, avoiding a family, truly an 'enlightened' person. Even if he peaks into the true nature of reality (which we all should want to do), what 'good' is he doing by living this life 24 hours a day for the rest of his life?

Isn't it far more challenging and courageous to live as a regular person-- married, raising a family--yet, as an enlightened one; dealing with wife (or husband) and child, and co-worker, and boss, and customer, and neighbour, as a Buddhist?

Isn't the act of becoming a monk a way of AVOIDING the 'nirvana' that comes with living life fully, as a spouse, parent and lover, with all its advantages and shortcomings? Isn't it truly mature to accept that we, as beings of flesh, should accept that we DO suffer, but that there's nothing 'wrong' with that suffering? We lost loved ones, we mourn them; we have our heart broken, it mends; we work for the great goal, only to see it fail, only to attempt another; and finally, we do not avoid the 'temptations of the flesh' like hunger or the libido, as they are part of ourselves, part of life. We are not dominated by them, but we also do not deny them. To eat is human, to work is human, to love is human, and finally, to copulate is human.

Isn't living life to its fullest DESPITE the suffering far more courageous than simply burying your head in the sand and saying you're above it all?

Hence, the drop of water is thrown into the ocean.

reply

You are interpretting the monastic life completely wrong. The Sangha(community of monks and nuns) is one of the Three Jewels of Buddhism and is considered very sacred in most asian countries, more so in SE asia. A monk has to work just as hard as the layman to reach enlightenment because it is about the cultivation of the mind that determines enlightenment, not an institution. Any one can reach enlightenment, there are countless Buddhist stories of laymen and women who attained nirvana. The Buddha taught that nirvana isn't for every one, but one of the major purposes of the Sangha is to allow laypeople to accumulate good merit by providing for them on their alms or sustaining a life for them as it is against the rules for them to work.
The Buddha is considered a teacher. The greater good of him abandoning his wife and child was so that he could attain enlightenment and teach many people about the Dharma. They don't say this in the movie, but the Buddha returned to his home 6 years after his Enlightenment and taught his son the Dharma, freeing him from samsara. His wife would become one of the founding women of the nun community and she achieved nirvana as well. Would either one of three had escape samsara had he not left his home?
Enlightenment comes from true understanding and focusing the mind and learn that there is no such thing as "me" or "self". What makes the self the self? The flesh? What makes the flesh? Cells? The questions keep coming with every answer you provide, it doesn't stop. There is no self, no soul, just the karma of the past, present, and future. Free yourself from the notion of self and all desire will end.

reply


Isn´t that the drop returning to the sea? To becoming one with the whole?

reply


coy_dog0: "Isn't it far more challenging and courageous to live as a regular person-- married, raising a family--yet, as an enlightened one; dealing with wife (or husband) and child, and co-worker, and boss, and customer, and neighbour, as a Buddhist?"

...So by that logic, someone is not a regular person unless they get married and procreate? Wow...how did you come to that conclusion?

reply

coy_dog0 (Fri Jun 2 2006 22:33:36) writes:

Isn't it far more challenging and courageous to live as a regular person-- married, raising a family--yet, as an enlightened one; dealing with wife (or husband) and child, and co-worker, and boss, and customer, and neighbour, as a Buddhist?

Well, does it make sense to try to do what is more challenging when one can't manage the less challenging? That's not a failing of the Buddhist view.

Tashi had managed the relatively less challenging, but even though he was "commercially" successful, he didn't succeed in the true sense as you allude to. However, at least he was suffiently self-aware to know it. Most aren't.

Back to the topic about the ending. There are numerous ways of looking at it. To think of any of them as "right" or "wrong", "both right and wrong" or "neither right nor wrong" are all what Buddhism calls Extreme Views. Avoiding extreme views is a very subtle achievement indeed.

reply

coy_dog0, you make some good points, but I have to disagree with you on one or two. If people like us didn't give birth to future monks, we would have spared them the effort of having to achieve enlightenment to begin with. They wouldn't have to work so hard to not be reborn, they'd have been left as part of the ocean to begin with.

As far as libido, I'm sure it varies between the different buddhist communities, but my understanding is that at least the Tibetan monks do indulge in sexual activities, usually with one or more of their female disciples. They don't like to talk about it much in the west, due to our prejudices regarding the practice. I'd love to know what happens to their children. Perhaps they're pronounced Tulkus and accepted into the monastery.

I do agree that leaving a child to go pursue one's enlightenment is a bad idea, and injures the child. Time enough for that after the child is grown.


reply

Many interesting points of view.

I think Tashi died hit in the forehead by a rock droped by a bird, as the goat from the start of the movie.

You see, Pema asked the kids when they all were near a brook what will happen to the piece of wood she threw into the water. There were many answers, but the correct one was: it will end up in the sea; the stick is like we humans are - we'll all end up in the sea. With other words - we'll all die.
Can you see now? Exactly as a drop of water.
How will you stop a drop of water to evaporate? By throwing it into the sea.
How could Tashi save his soul? By throwing himself into the 'sea', except he didn't do it. The 'sea' took him.

reply

Maybe the previous message writer got the point of the movie... Many people are left in doubts because they clearly haven't followed spiritual training or are not familiar with spiritual yoga or bouddhist teachings.

I took initiation from a spiritual master of India and during some 20 years now has been trained in meditation and have paid India many long spiritual visits. So it is maybe my duty to clarify an important misunderstanding.

So many times during the climax of a group meditation I heard the realised Master telling "now the drop is merging into the ocean". It is the metaphor for the human soul merging the divine ocean; the divine ocean is feeding the soul thus the drop isn't drying up... It is the deconnected ego merged in worldly life that is running from illusion to delusion and confusion.

So the only way to get liberation in a worldly life is to be permanently connected with the divine during all activities. And that is not that easy, my friends, not at all.
That's why after some years of meditation practice it is good to be for a period of time in seclusion for deepening and stabilising your spiritual focus. Bouddha did, Jesus did. Not everybody can do that and not everybody want to do that: one has to be prepared for it...

Spiritually yours.
Carol baba

reply

Wow...

Just caught the last 15 minutes of this film (bit like my life...)

..but I found myself almost crying (with Tashi) at the pain of being torn between the ocean of compassion in which all individual selves and desires ultimately dissolve, and the direct image of this same love in the feelings of one temporary self for another - which takes each 'worldly' self partly out of itself and into the selfless ocean.

..And the child that is created from that worldly love in which we lose our selves shares the selfhood of father and mother all the way to the sea in which all selves dissolve.

So how can a father leave an infant self, unable to deal with the pain, in his own selfish desire to escape the suffering that accompanies any self?

Is that the final step, in which Tashi goes 'through' the selfish desire to lose his self, into the selfless ocean of Enlightenment? Or is he choosing his own selfish salvation rather than the absolute compassion of a parent for his child's (unexplainable) loss and suffering?

I guess part, at least, of the Christian tradition confronts a question rather like this very directly. And the 'West' has generally regarded oriental mysticism (not to mention some Western practices, especially in the Roman Church) as presenting a deluded and contradictory 'worldly' image of separation from 'the world' and all its selfish evils (I particularly remember the story of a famous Catholic saint who thanked God for her mother's death because it freed her to pursue her own sainthood more single-mindedly). Tibetan Buddhism was usually seen as the most extreme form of such confusion of material and spiritual dimensions of life outside 'primitive' animism. Or is it fusion?

Tricky stuff - and presented here, it seems, in an illusory 'film' whose surface is so much thinner than even everyday reality.

I have an, um, urgent desire to see the beginning and middle of this magic.

reply

The problem with the film is that it is mixing Hindu concepts into a Buddhist film. The ideas of "ocean" and "stream" are very Hindu in nature. The ocean is viewed as eternal, which in Buddhism makes no sense because it criticizes eternalism. The filmmaker is Hindu and he incorporated Hindu ideas into the film and this decision to do so has confused some viewers.

reply

It is true that some Hindu concepts found their way into the film. To answer some of the interesting questions would require some background explanation. According to Hindu Dharma there are two main ways of life, one of renunciation (Sanyasa) and one of family life (Samsara/Grahastha). Both of these are said to be equally rightful paths to God (here the ocean/sea to which all waters lead to).

The problem only comes when one is not strong in their chosen discipline and end up failing and earning the disappointment of both his teacher and his family (like Tashi did) in a state of confusion on what is his calling. This is caused due to extreme indulgence rather than taking the moderate path.

The solution for this Conundrum has also been explained by Manu in the Manusmriti where he divides man's life into 4 quarters. For the first 25 years you should stay single and study. For the next 25-50, get married, have children and enjoy family and worldy life to the full.

At the age of 50 when your child gets married and wife has reached menopause, take her along with you for a pilgrimage and visit various holy spots to explore the universe inside you. When 75 return to the world much wiser to teach your grandchildren and others all that you have learnt in the years of penance.

This way of life shown by Manu is believed by Hindus to provide a more balanced life to a Grahastha (HouseHolder) and the director perhaps takes a dig at Siddhartha for abandoning his duties as a family man inbetween the Grahastha stage in pursuit of enlightenment.

To answer the other question, I believe the cloth shown by Pema in the end when Tashi once again changes his mind to come back with her are the clothes of Sujatha containing his Monastic beads. Women always express their anger and disappointment in symbolic ways that will cut a man psychologically. I feel there is no illusion intended about her appearance there.

reply

Nice explanation from Kalyanbk for everyone not familiar with the varnashrama-dharmaconcept: the 4 life stages advised to worldly people.
And indeed, I have seen it many times that people are not able to follow truthfully their spiritual path because of indulgence.
Discipline for meditation is not enough, some people want keep carrying along with them all kind of worldly desires - money, sex, food & drink, cigarettes... Like a hot-air balloon - despite stepping on the gas - can not ascend as long as the ballast is not thrown off !!!!!!
Not only aggression and irritation, fears, but many times are forgotten/neglected during spiritual training the other states of character and mind as well like changes of mind, imbalance, doubt, indulgence....

reply

Okej, now I've done a lot of research on buddhism and this is my go...

The title is "samsara" which is a circle, a stream, wheel (there are many specific interpretations) of desire. Not a happy place to be according to buddhists. Though this is offcourse where Tashi is throughout the movie. Someoen has pointed out that the movie uses the river metaphore for samsara - Tashi is shown standing in the river a couple of times as he goes through life changes.

The riddle reads: "how do you prevent a drop of water from drying out?" and aswers "you let it out in the sea."

I suggest that this could be translated to:

"How do you prevent the self from dying? You remain in samsara".
The individual is the drop and drying out is the death of the individual. The ocean is samsara (that is common buddhist symbolism as I understand). The drying out is the death of the self, not necessarily the physical death of the organism. Death of self=nirvana. So it's a choice of attempting nirvana or choosing to remain in samsara.

So the riddle serves as a reminder for Tashi that according to buddhist philosophy, he should go back to the monastery and work on nirvana - on his "drying up", rather then going back to samsara/family/ocean. But there is no telling if Tashi follows this teaching. The riddle works in symbiouse with the rest of the movie in that it illuminates the options, but doesn't really say which one Tashi choose. My hunch is he goes back to the monastery.

Is the riddle a koan?

reply

Replying to the OP: 1st of all I am no buddhist nor I have a deep knowledge about that religion. So if some buddhist reads this: excuse me if I've misunderstood some concept.

IMO the ending is left open for your interpretation. Will Tashi go back with his wife and kid? or will he abandon them (as Siddhartha did with Yashodhara and his son), by remaining in the monastery searching for the spiritual enlightment?

Tashi is in the middle of this crossroads, and he has to choose. In my opinion it's not clear what path he chose. He just go to the stone wall, picks one, reads the question, then reads a cryptic answer in the back. What does it mean? Since I am not a buddhist theologian, I just can "assume" that Tashi understood that he wouldn't reach enlightment by leaving his family behind, by leaving his wife sad and lonely and a fatherless son. But that's my own interpretation that is biased by my western education and my lack of knowledge on oriental philosophy.

As far as I know it could be the other way as well, Perhaps Tashi realized how much Siddartha had to sacrifice in order to reach the enlightment. Hence that might have reinforced his search for the spiritual illumination.

Just my two cents.

reply

a drop of water dries up...
like all common souls..living the worldly existence..stuck in the same place(like the twig) and rot...rot with anger,lust,pride,posesiveness all things Tashi had felt.and get finished..or reach the greater..sea..reach enlightenment.

by the way,Tashi didn't reach anywhere near sea,either in the monastary..even after 3 years of meditation...neither did he found the sea living the worldly life with wife and child...he was always stuck.. in both the circumstances.

reply

[deleted]