Date: 03/02/2024 03/03/2024
Location: Star Ocean Meditation Center
Teacher: Sara
Dharma Knowledge
The Causes and Conditions of the Prince’s Renunciation
The prince’s renunciation is often portrayed as an emotional reaction to encountering old age, sickness, and death. Such a reading, however, reduces a profound decision to momentary shock and obscures its intellectual depth. The renunciation was not an escape from reality, but a rational response to a fundamental inquiry into it.
Externally, the prince had no compelling reason to abandon worldly life. Born into royalty, he possessed political security, material abundance, and familial stability. Within the social framework of his time, these conditions represented success and protection. It is precisely this completeness that makes his decision meaningful: renunciation did not arise from deprivation, but from reflection under ideal circumstances.
What led to his departure was not a single event, but the formation of a structural insight. When confronted with aging, illness, and death, the prince did not merely note their existence—these were universally known—but recognized a deeper implication: even under the most favorable conditions, no one is exempt from them. The question was not whether suffering occurs, but whether it is structurally unavoidable.
This realization undermined the assumed coherence of ordinary life. If birth, aging, sickness, and death are not accidental disruptions but inherent features of existence, then a life devoted to accumulation, continuity, and possession lacks ultimate justification. The prince did not reject family, governance, or society as such; he recognized that they could not address the core problem of suffering and its cessation.
Renunciation, therefore, was not a refusal of responsibility, but a redefinition of it. Remaining in the palace meant fulfilling political and dynastic duties; leaving meant assuming responsibility for a more fundamental question shared by all humans. The choice was not between ease and hardship, but between levels of inquiry. His decision followed an assessment of which problem was more essential.
Although renunciation was common in his cultural context, most ascetics sought heavenly rewards, personal liberation, or transcendental states through established methods. The prince did not simply adopt these aims. His purpose was not to attain a particular experience, but to understand the causal structure underlying suffering itself. This distinction would later define the non-dogmatic character of the Dharma.
Thus, the cause of renunciation was not fear of phenomena, but dissatisfaction with explanation. The prince refused to accept conventional answers or to end inquiry through custom, authority, or divine decree. His insistence on a complete and coherent account made renunciation unavoidable.
In this sense, renunciation was not a turning point of life circumstances, but a decisive orientation of cognition. From that moment, the central question was no longer how to live better within the world, but whether life itself was grounded in a fundamental misunderstanding. This question ultimately led to awakening.
