That is certainly one of a collection of articles the place I’ve been mythbusting issues individuals “know” in regards to the Buddha. These myths embrace the supposed info that he was a prince, that he was born a Hindu, and that he left residence after seeing “4 sights.”
Such factoids are current in virtually each e-book e-book in regards to the Buddha and Buddhism. But if we glance with a bit historic consciousness at our earliest sources — the scriptures — we see that none of these items is true.
On this article I need to mythbust one thing else that everybody thinks they know, which is the Buddha’s private identify having been “Siddhartha” (Siddhattha in Pāli). The proof now we have signifies that it wasn’t.
The quick story is that the identify Siddhartha isn’t discovered within the early scriptures, and is a reputation given to the Buddha after his demise. Should you’re within the lengthy story, proceed studying…
Siddhartha was an epithet, not a reputation
Siddhartha (Siddhattha in Pali) means “one who has achieved (siddha) his goals (attha).”
In not one of the scriptural discourses — the suttas — is the Buddha known as Siddhartha. This identify is just present in a couple of very late texts, such because the Apadāna, the Buddhavaṁsa, and the Milindapañha, which post-date the Buddha’s demise.
Reasonably than being a private identify, Siddhattha is an epithet, which is “an adjective or phrase expressing a top quality or attribute considered attribute of the individual or factor talked about.”
Folks utilized many epithets to the Buddha, together with Sugata (the one nicely come), Tathāgatha (the one thus gone), and naturally Buddha itself (the one who’s woke up). The Buddha most frequently referred to himself as Tathāgatha.
He’s generally, however not often, referred to within the scriptures as Sakyamunī, “the sage of the Sakyans.” That is one other epithet, and doubtless a late one. (The later Mahāyāna typically refers to Gotama as Śākyamuni Buddha so as to distinguish him from different, mythic, Buddhas.)
First identify, final identify? It’s not so easy
We are likely to learn our up to date assumptions about names again into historic instances. So we assume that individuals need to have a primary identify (or private identify) and a final identify (or household identify). Maybe they’ve a number of center names as nicely. We assume that the household identify is shared by everybody of their father’s direct lineage. So my dad’s final identify is Stephen, my dad’s dad had that identify, I inherited it, and also you’d count on my kids to inherit it in flip. You’d count on somebody to have just one household identify. You wouldn’t count on the Stephen household to even be referred to as one thing else, like “MacTavish,” for instance.
However not everybody on the planet shares these naming conventions. There are locations the place individuals solely have one identify. In Ethiopia, the custom is that your final identify is your father’s first identify. My daughter’s first passport — an Ethiopian one — had her final identify as Bodhipaksa, which is my first identify.
In Iceland, your final identify is your father’s first identify with the added suffix -son or -dottir, relying in your gender. In Iceland I’d be Bodhipaksa Iansson, and my sister would have been Fiona Iansdottir. Though my sister and I have been members of the identical household, we’d have completely different final names.
The “first identify adopted by a household identify” mannequin will not be common in fashionable instances, and we definitely can’t apply it to historic India. We’ve to let-go of some assumptions earlier than we contemplate the Buddha’s names.
The Buddha’s final names
That the Buddha was referred to as Gotama (Gautama in Sanskrit) will not be problematic. The scriptures bear witness to the truth that he was referred to as Gotama, as a result of individuals typically name him that. They seek advice from him as “the ascetic Gotama” (samaṇa gotama) for instance.
Gotama wasn’t precisely a household identify in the best way we perceive it, although. It was a tribal, or gotra identify.
Now, the Buddhist scholar Alexander Wynne tries to make a case for Gotama being the Buddha’s private identify fairly than a gotra (tribal) identify. Gotama was a Vedic household identify, and the Buddha’s tribe weren’t followers of the Vedas, and so, he reckons, the Buddha’s household couldn’t have been referred to as Gotama.
However then within the scriptures you may have issues like this, the place the Buddha is instructing the Sakyans of Kapilavatthu, his residence city:
The Buddha spent a lot of the night time educating, encouraging, firing up, and galvanizing the Sakyans with a Dhamma discuss. Then he dismissed them, saying, “The night time is getting late, Gotamas. Please go at your comfort.”
The Buddha refers to his fellow Sakyans as “Gotamas,” which signifies that Gotama is not getting used as a private identify. It’s a gotra (clan) identify. The Buddha’s father, Suddhodana, can be referred to as Gotama. And his aunt and foster mom is called Gotami, the female type of the identify.
And at one level the Buddha says outright, “Gotama is my clan.”
What’s in a (clan) identify?
A clan identify will not be essentially what we’d consider as a household identify. You’ll discover that the Buddha, within the quote above, calls the Sakyans “Gotamas.” Sakya was a rustic. Below mainstream European naming conventions it’s not potential for even a small nation’s residents to all have the identical household identify. It might be that completely different households in Sakya had completely different family-identifying names, however I’m not conscious of any proof for that within the scriptures, and I doubt that was the case. They have been all Gotamas.
As for Wynne’s argument that Gotama is a Vedic identify — the identify of a sage — I’ve addressed that elsewhere. Sakka turned a topic state of the dominion of Kosala. It’s doubtless that as a part of having their rulers legitimized, the Sakyans went by way of some sort of ceremony the place they have been aligned with the legendary Rishi Gautama. This Gautama would have been akin to a “patron saint.” The Sakyans didn’t in any other case observe Vedic traditions, however non-Vedic peoples taking over clan names based mostly on Vedic figures was not unusual.
Youngsters of the Solar
The Sakyans weren’t simply Gotamas. They’d a number of, overlapping names.
Earlier than his enlightenment the Buddha met King Bimbisāra of Maghada, who was interested by his origins. The Buddha-to-be defined,
Their clan [gotta] is called for the Solar [Ādicca],
they’re Sakyans by beginning.
I’ve gone forth from that household
So the Gotamas, or Sakyans, additionally glided by the identify Ādicca. This was one other epithet.
Typically the Buddha referred to himself as “Ādiccabandhu.” It means “kinsman of the solar” or “of the Photo voltaic race.” Given the quote above, it’s doubtless that every one Sakyans have been referred to as Ādiccabandhu.
So his household appears to have been each Ādicca(bandhu) and Gotama. Maybe Ādicca, or Ādiccabandhu, was their unique identify and Gotama the one they got as a part of their legitimization by the Kosalans. Perhaps Sakya was their unique identify, with Gotama being assigned by a king and Ādicca being an epithet. We simply don’t know.
Rays of Mild
It will get worse! The Gotama clan was often known as “Aṅgīrasa.” This identify actually means “Rays of Mild From the Limbs” nevertheless it refers back to the religious descendants of the legendary Rishi (sage) Aṅgīras.
Some individuals have urged Aṅgīrasa as the primary identify of the Buddha. It definitely sounds prefer it whenever you learn a sutta like this:
I’m the son of the Buddha, the incomparable Aṅgīrasa, the unaffected,
the bearer of the insufferable.
You, Sakya, are my father’s father;
Gotama, you’re my grandfather within the Dhamma.
A notice within the Entry to Perception translation of this discourse refers to an historic commentarial suggestion that Aṅgīrasa was one of many Buddha’s private names. However Aṅgīrasa is the identify for a department of the Gotama clan lineage. So it’s one other “final identify.”
We’re not used to the thought of getting a number of final names. It’s not unknown, although. I stated earlier that you just wouldn’t count on a Stephen to even be a MacTavish, however within the Scottish clan system the Stephens are MacTavishes. Whereas my kin wouldn’t signal “MacTavish” on the dotted line, should you requested certainly one of them what clan they belonged to the right reply can be “MacTavish.” Perhaps that’s much like how the Sakyan clan system labored. I don’t assume anybody is aware of.
Anyway, now we have a lot of overlapping clan names (or “final names”) for the Buddha, however no clear first identify.
No names please, we’re enlightened
The Buddha in truth discouraged even using his gotra identify, Gotama, at the least should you have been certainly one of his followers and addressing him personally.
When, shortly after his awakening, he sought out his 5 former companions, they got here to him and addressed him as “pal (āvuso) Gotama.” His response was:
Don’t tackle the Tathāgata by identify and as “pal.” The Tathāgata, pals, is a worthy one, rightly self-awakened.
“Tathāgata” was how the Buddha usually referred to himself. It’s one other epithet, though seemingly a self-chosen one.
Presumably this restriction on using “Gotama” solely utilized to the Buddha’s followers, since respectful Brahmins tended to name him “worthy Gotama” (bho Gotama) or “grasp Gotama” (bhavaṁ Gotama). He didn’t appear to have an issue with that.
Sakyan exceptionalism
In relation to names, the Sakyans, as in so many different areas, had completely different customs from the Brahmanical cultures to their south.
The Brahmins that got here to speak to the Buddha appear to have referred to themselves by their clan names. However the Sakyans referred to themselves and one another primarily by what appear to be private names. Suddhodana, Ananda, Nanda, Suppabuddha, Anuruddha, and Devadatta: these are all kin of the Buddha, and these seem like their private names.
So it’s important that we don’t know the Buddha’s personal private identify. It might be that referring to the enlightened one by a private identify may need been a taboo.
It could be much like how photographs of the Buddha weren’t made throughout his lifetime, or for a very long time thereafter.
After a couple of hundred years of cultural change, individuals (the Greeks, initially) began creating Buddha photographs. Equally, after a time period individuals began to offer the Buddha a primary identify: however they didn’t know what it initially was, in order that they tended use epithets to fill within the clean.
What’s in a reputation, anyway?
Our bureaucratic tradition, the place births and deaths are formally registered, insists that individuals will need to have one official identify. In apply, although, “Alexander MacTavish” would possibly use his full identify, or be known as “Alex,” “Lex,” “Al,” “Large Al,” “Sandy,” “Xander,” and so forth. After all, should you requested him what his first identify “actually” was, he’d reply that it was “Alexander” — his legally registered identify. However they didn’t have such issues in historic India. Within the system the place there’s no such factor as an official first names, does the query “What’s the Buddha’s actual first identify?” really imply something?
Take into account the Buddha’s spouse. Most individuals who’ve studied Buddhism will confidently say she was referred to as Yasodharā, however in doing that they’re making a option to disregard the opposite names that she may need used or been recognized by. Rāhulamātā (Rāhula’s mom) is the most typical identify by which she’s recognized within the scriptures. Bhaddakaccānā can be discovered a few instances within the scriptures. Gopi is most constantly utilized in different early sources. The editor of the Dictionary of Pali Correct Names posited that her identify may need been “Bimbā.” Yasodharā solely seems after her demise.
Throughout her life Yasodharā, to name her that for now, may need been recognized to completely different individuals at completely different instances by some, all, or none of these names. The Buddha too may need had a number of names. He may need had one private identify as a toddler, after which one other identify as an grownup. He may need had completely different private names in numerous contexts — along with his spouse, mother and father, pals, and so forth. He may need had a secret, ritual identify. We simply don’t know. His private identify, or names, has been misplaced.
A sacred silence
We have to study to be comfy with not understanding what the Buddha was referred to as. Our minds are likely to need to fill within the gaps, however on this case we don’t also have a sound foundation for guessing. Our minds need to match the Buddha’s names into our fashionable, bureaucratically influenced naming conventions, however we’d be smart to withstand that impulse.
If it helps, maybe we might contemplate that if it wasn’t essential for early Buddhists to document the Buddha’s identify, it shouldn’t be essential to us both. Within the psychological area the place his private identify would go, we might maybe let a sacred silence take root.
When individuals first began carving or portray scenes from the Buddha’s life, they left an area the place the Buddha can be. For instance, you’d see the tree the place he was meditating, however not him. You’d see his footprint, however not his foot.
Students name this “the aniconic Buddha.” The absence of the Buddha was a sacred area of awe and reverence. The place the place the Buddha’s identify must be could possibly be like that, too.
An moral concern
Ethically, we must always not state one thing to be the case until we’re sure it was. We definitely shouldn’t say that the Buddha’s first identify was Siddhattha or Siddhartha. We are able to actually inform individuals he he was referred to as Gotama. Folks did name him that. We are able to say that Gotama was one thing like a final identify.
We are able to nonetheless name the Buddha “Siddhārtha” or “Siddhattha,” in fact, however we must also clarify that that is one thing akin to a title, and never a primary identify as we perceive that time period as we speak.
By acknowledging this, we talk to individuals: It’s okay to not know issues. We don’t need to make issues up. We don’t have to create the phantasm of understanding. When there’s cause to be unsure, we must always chorus from false certainties.
When one thing is unknown, it’s sincere to say that it’s unknown. And the Buddha’s private identify is unknown.
Wildmind is a Group-Supported Meditation Initiative. Click on right here to search out out in regards to the many advantages of being a sponsor.