The Moral Lessons of Materialism

The Christian parable of the prodigal son in the Gospel of Luke (15:11-32) and the Buddhist allegory of the son in the Lotus Sutra contain striking similarities.  Yet, upon closer reading, the stories diverge and are demonstrative of their individual faiths.  They are also indicative of the differences between Christianity and Buddhism in their respective paths to achieving a higher spiritual plane.  Both passages contain references to materialism and wealth, which plays a central role in the shaping of the story and the moral lessons they contain.  However, the representation of materialism within each story does not convey or share a universal meaning.  This paper will examine the similarities between the two stories and how the topic of materialism, which both parables share, distinguishes the moral lessons imparted by the passages.

In the Christian story, the son essentially demands his share of the family inheritance, to which the father acquiesces.  The son then leaves home, spending his inheritance until he is destitute.  Famine strikes the area where the son is living.  Downtrodden and feeling defeated, the son enters into a job he considers to be of low socioeconomic order, lower than that of his father’s servants back home.  He eventually returns home where his father welcomes him with open arms and throws a banquet to welcome his son back, regardless of the squandered inheritance. 

Similarly, in the Buddhist story, the son leaves home, with no inheritance or wealth.  He wanders the land for years, poor, taking jobs here and there to provide continued sustenance.  Eventually, the son stumbles upon the house of his father, who had moved while he was away.  The father had grown wealthy and unrecognizable to his son after such a long time apart.  The son takes up employment in his father’s house and is promoted until finally discovering that his father is his wealthy employer. 

The two stories are similar in some ways.  At its most basic premise, they both contain a son who leaves home only to return destitute at a later date.  On a deeper level, both stories are about the son, metaphorically representing humans, and his path to find the highest spirituality in their respective faiths, the Christian communion with God and the Buddhist attainment of ultimate wisdom.  In both instances the son also suffers through menial tasks and poverty on their journey.  There is a father figure in both parables that represents the central deity in their religions.  They end with the son earning his eternal reward, a personal relationship with God and the realization of spiritual enlightenment.

The parables share materialism in their stories.  However, there are differences between them.  These dissimilarities lie in the interaction of the son with mortal trappings, with materialism and wealth.  The Christian son spends his time away from home as most modern Western college students might spend their spring break.  Luke 15:13 describes this behavior as “reckless.”  It is foolish spending.  This son consumes goods and/or services that eventually leave him broke.  Whereas, the Buddhist son, when he returns ‘home’ to his father’s residence, is startled and panicked by materialism.  Such is the materialistic splendor that this son does not even recognize his father.  In fact, this opulence frightens the son to the extent that he flees his creator. 

It is clear that both parables use materialism, and its affects, to develop the stories’ moral and spiritual meaning.  In the Christian story, the decadence of materialism, as portrayed in the son’s loss of his greedily acquired inheritance, represents the fall from the Christian path, a rebellion against God’s teachings.  This son had succumbed to sin but is not a black sheep, just a lost one.  The son’s desire to leave the wealth and economic comfort he was born into is a personal choice.  Freedom of the will took him away.  But, this same freedom is also what can save the son.  The moral lessons of this story is that following the Christian path is a choice, one that we must freely make, no matter how lost or how far one has strayed.  The son loses his inheritance, his connection with his God, but is able to restore this relationship through conscious action.

In the Buddhist story, materialism demonstrates a higher form of spirituality.  The son and his father are not wealthy when the son leaves.  It is the son’s spiritual ignorance that forces him from home.  His journey, over fifty years and many miles, represent the cycle of rebirth as he wanders through various forms of physical existence.  Unlike the Christian story, the Buddhist son does not actively seek to return home.  Rather, it is spiritual progress that leads him to a place where he can attain the ultimate wisdom.  His father, the Buddha personified, was unrecognizable to his son, disguised by opulence and pageantry representing enlightened spirituality.  While the son is afraid of the pomp and spectacle, he makes the decision to return to his father’s house as a servant.  The son works his way up from his ignorance, accumulating wisdom, until, through the acquisition of his father’s materialistic inheritance; he attains the ultimate wisdom and reality.  The lesson we can obtain from the Buddha in this instance is that through the search for wisdom can sometimes be a long, slow, miserable trudge.  But, one must be willing to follow the path and that only through wisdom can one attain their divine end.

Wealth and materialism are not used to the same metaphorical end for both stories.  In the Christian parable, materialism is used to demonstrate the trappings and temptations that exist outside God’s path.  The Buddhist story uses the same earthly materialism to represent that which is accomplished through the attainment of wisdom.  Materialism is not one of the more prominent aspects of discourse concerning these two parables but could be just as spiritually enlightening and meaningful as other interpretations of these two passages.

Moral Authority, the State and Confusius

Confucius’s philosophy can also be seen as social commentary, especially when it relates to his thoughts on the concept of family and individual responsibility.  His teachings were both political and ethical.  They were born out of the social and political events surrounding the rise of the Zhou power.  They served to legitimize political authority at the highest levels and to create social harmony.

Confucius places an emphasis on the family and its function.  He sees it as one of the most fundamental units of society at large.  Because families participate in society, it is a logical step to think that how one performs in society, as an adult, would be built on the foundations instilled as a child, by one’s family.  It was the family’s responsibility, Confucius argued, for the education of their children.  Parents should ensure that their children are prepared for live in society and would be able to meet and overcome the problems they would later face.  If done properly, there would be obedience within families where individuals did what needed to be done, not simply what the individual wanted to do. (Duiker, 2006)  It is ultimately a political statement, however.  Good family members, who are obedient and who put their responsibility to the community, and state, over their individual desires would become good members of society, and, therefore, good subject.  Obedient subjects would create political stability.

Confucius was not only talking the kids at the back of the class.  He also had thoughts on those in the higher echelon of the political hierarchy.  Even emperors had their roles to play.  If the ruler set a good example, the benefits would be seen by society and the subjects would act accordingly.  This would ensure political stability.  In Confucius’s time, it was thought that rulers derived their authority by a mandate from heaven. (Adler, 2005)  By cultivating the morality of emperors, kings and rulers, society could be transformed.  A weak kingdom could be made powerful; a chaotic empire could be pacified by following Confucian philosophy.  Essentially, he was making the statement that government by moral authority was far superior to government by immoral authority.

Confucian thought helped to reinforce the divine authority of rulers, an idea planted by the Zhou dynasty that can still be seen today.  By establishing a political system, with the family at the base, which reached from the ground up through the ruler and into heaven, he found a way to establish political harmony and societal peace.  Even though he may not have had the immediate effect he desired, his comments, though, would resonate through the ages. 

Works Cited

Adler, Joseph A.  “Chinese Religion: An Overview.”  In Encyclopedia of Religion, 2^nd ed., edited by Lindsay Jones.  Detroit: MacMillan Reference USA, 2005.

Duiker, William J. and Jackson Spielgovel.  The Essential World History, 3^rd ed.  Boston: Cengage Learning, 2006.