Buddha Doctrine vs Pedophagus

Gautama Siddhartha, a descendant of Surya(Sun), saw his own son Rahula as an obstacle, which was completely out of tune as a father. So, he abandoned Rahula and Yasodhara, i.e., ball and chain.

Why did Siddhartha do this? What was the real reason behind? When I took some psychology class, my professor told us that the Freudian theories didn't really have much credibility in academia anymore. But screw that. I would like to apply it to Siddhartha's situation.

Siddhartha wasn't too happy when his son was born. Probably he saw his son not only as an obstacle but also as a threat. But father seeing his son as a threat was nothing new. If we look around the world, we can find the Kronos myth in Greece. Kronos had an awful prophesy; one day his son would overthrow him, which completely freaked him out, and then he totally went crazy, eating his children one by one completely out of madness. But only Zeus could manage to escape by the skin of his teeth and defeated Kronos in the battle and came to take his place. Kronos' terror was ended by his own son. In India, King Bimbisara was confined by his own son Ajatashatru. Pumped up Ajatashatru also detained his mother and he almost had her executed but called it off at the last minute because his subordinates made desperate efforts to persuade him not to. The time of Siddhartha had many coups like this, so he also might have thought that he would have been facing the same fate if he didn't become a shramana. I would call this "the karma of phagus(eating)." Meat-eater is carnivore, so son-eater is filivore, and father-eater is patrivore. Child-eating is pedophagus. So, Kronos was carnivorous, filivorous, and pedophageal at the same time.

If Siddhartha had a daughter, he would never have imagined like that...at least in the patriarchal domain. But his first born turned out to be a boy. So, he had a sense of danger that one day he would be devoured by Rahula. As the descendant of Surya, he was scared to death that he would face the same fate that the other kings did. And most kings took preemptive action, extirpating their heirs before they were eaten alive.

"Kill before you get killed." That is the Bush Doctrine's notorious "preemptive action." And that has been recorded in many mythologies. Oedipus' father had a prophesy that he would be killed by Oedipus. So he ordered to have his own baby executed. But he couldn't resist the karma of pedophagus. He was eventually murdered by grown-up Oedipus. However, the patricidal Karma haunted Oedipus in turn, and finally the karma struck him, so he went blind and became a shramana. And many tragic heroes went through the same fate. Siddhartha didn't kill his father, but his real mother died of child birth. So, in a twisted sense, Siddhartha had the matricidal karma creeping up behind him, so he also knew that his grown up son would strike him down, so he found Rahula heliophageal, or "sun-eater-like." In fact, the word "solar eclipse" in Japanese(Chinese) is literally "Sun-eat."

Siddhartha must have been in a dilemma; whether he should kill Rahula and become a king, but he wouldn't be able to escape from the pedophageal karma, yet if he let Rahula go alive, he would be overthrown. Catch 22. I guess Siddhartha's hunger for power was very intense. He had an ambition to be the powerful king of India. Moreover, if he were with Rahula, Rahula would have developed the Oedipus complex, beginning to fall in love with Yasodhara and build hatred against Siddhartha, thus Rahula would have developed a motivation for patricide. That's why Siddhartha was on the verge of a nervous breakdown. He had enough of the phageal Karma. So the drastic measure he took was not homicide nor suicide but hemocide, to renounce his royal bloodline. Needless to say his decision making was the most unconventional for his time period which would flip the world upside down. That is what makes Siddhartha different from the other legendary kings.

In a Freudian sense, Rahula would have been killed by Siddhartha. Or, the other way around. Patriphageal. But by the time Rahula started realizing around the world, his father was not around already. Siddhartha was already a minstrel. So, Rahula didn't really develop Oedipus complex. He already monopolized his mother's love in the beginning without any enemy. In short, he was raised by a single mother. However, his search for his father must have decided the later course of his life since he grew up missing his father. His father who renounced him and his mother was not a royal family member anymore. He was no more an heir, for he had conceded the right to the throne to his relatives. So, Siddhartha had brought dishonor to his family. Who was this father? His father must have become a legend in Rahula's heart. That's why Rahula hoped to join the Sangha that his father opened. It was natural for him to do so. Siddhartha's decision making turned out to be all good.

Siddhartha ceased the karma of cannibalism by renunciation. He was the first prince in the world history who was able to change his predestination. There was a movie "Final Destination," which deals with how to avoid the advanced billing death. In short, how to manage to prolong life. Siddhartha's final destination was patrivore. So, father eats his son before eaten by his son, which is one way to prolong life, but no king has ever escaped from the karma of filicide. And the karma of eclipse could have lasted forever as eternal recurrence. However, Siddhartha destroyed the chain of samsara with the sacred sword. His action blew away this vicious karma, thus he was able to prolong his own life.

Moreover, for the time period of Siddhartha, Vedanta, a type of Upanishads, was a trend back then. According to this philosophy, heir, property, and the world are hindrances. That means you are the only master of yourself, and the others are just satellites revolving around you. In that sense, his son was a hindrance too. So, his son's presence might have been a threat to his position as the master. Or, he was fully aware of the carnivorous karma, so he devoted himself to Vedanta in order to open the gate for a solution. The general rule was that renunciation took place after your heir was old enough to succeed. So, he could have passed the heirloom without losing his honor. But, Siddharhta believed in the prophesy without any doubt, and moreover, he was megalomaniac seeing himself as the Sun, so he could never imagine himself giving up the throne for Rahula. So he was desperate. Then, in the middle of his desperation, he came to have an encounter with Upanishads. And it promised him that he would be the master no matter what, even if he were to lose power and money. In addition, Upanishads itself was nontraditional too. He might have seen the tradition itself as burdensome as the Karma, so he was completely immersed in Upanishads. Therefore, in spite of his young age, he totally ignored the tradition, and became a family-deserter. And as a military commander of the Sakya, he went AWOL, neglecting his duties as a leader. It was an ordinary course of events that kings who clung to their positions would be eaten by their own sons and lose everything. However, Siddhartha thought out differently and got lost from the future power struggle between him and his son.

He must have figured that it would be better off for him to renounce his heirship than becoming a king and later being overthrown. That's why he took the action. And it was innovative to do so at that time in India. From a self-preservation point of view, Siddhartha's decision was a measure to prolong his life to preserve his Atman.

The Bush Doctrine is "eat before you get eaten." Bush's final destination was a mushroom cloud, so he did anything he could to avoid it, by having his hands stained with the blood of Iraqis. But the Buddha Doctrine would be "yield before you get eaten." Or you let them know that you're not their prey. Heinous crocodiles don't prey on birds which regularly clean their teeth. They just open their mouths to let the birds clean. The same goes here; if you let go of power, who would see you as an enemy in power struggles?

Anyway, Siddhartha finally ceased his attachments and attained the enlightenment. And after few years, he and his son came to have a reunion, and put an end to the karma of phagus. But, Siddhartha's prophesy came true in the other form; the Sakyan genocide. Siddhartha and Rahula were able to get away from the karma, but not for the Sun tribe, the bloodline of Ishkuvaku(Okkaka). In fact, they couldn't destroy the karma of eclipse as an ethnic group. People who made renunciation were able to get away from the Flight 180 crash, but people who dedicated their lives to nationalism were gone with the wind. How did Siddhartha feel when he saw this tragedy? As the ex-crown prince of the exterminated tribe?

P.S.

Any stress that comes into play is all from nutriment as a requisite condition.
-Sn 3.12 (my emphasis)

However, the word "nutriment" is actually alimentation in a French version.

Toute angoisse qui entre en jeu provient toute entière de l'alimentation en tant que condition nécessaire.
(my emphasis)

And alimentation means "diet," so it is rather a process of eating than nutriment itself. Plus, the Spanish word is alimentación, which also means "diet." And the Japanese translation of 747 is also 食(shoku), means both "diet" and "food." So, it would say the meaning includes not only "nutriment" but also "eating." And of course, "eating" in Greek is phagus. So, I will rephrase it like this;

Any suferring that comes into play is all from phagus as a requisite condition.

Thus, phagus as karma and suffering as vipaka. Or phagus as pratitya and suffering as samutpada. Therefore, Siddhartha ended the phageal karma "with the cessation of phagus, there is no suffering coming into play" by renunciation.