That is one among a sequence of articles the place I’ve been mythbusting issues individuals “know” in regards to the Buddha. These myths embody the supposed info that he was a prince, that he was born a Hindu, and that he left house after seeing “4 sights.”
Such factoids are current in nearly each e book e book in regards to the Buddha and Buddhism. But if we glance with just a little historic consciousness at our earliest sources — the scriptures — we see that none of this stuff is true.
On this article I wish 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 we now 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 loss of life. When you’re within the lengthy story, proceed studying…
Siddhartha was an epithet, not a reputation
Siddhartha (Siddhattha in Pali) means “one who has completed (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 number of very late texts, such because the Apadāna, the Buddhavaṁsa, and the Milindapañha, which post-date the Buddha’s loss of life.
Slightly 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.”
Individuals utilized many epithets to the Buddha, together with Sugata (the one properly 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 typically, however not often, referred to within the scriptures as Sakyamunī, “the sage of the Sakyans.” That is one other epithet, and possibly a late one. (The later Mahāyāna usually refers to Gotama as Śākyamuni Buddha with a view 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 occasions. 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 properly. 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 anticipate my youngsters to inherit it in flip. You’d anticipate somebody to have just one household identify. You wouldn’t anticipate the Stephen household to even be referred to as one thing else, like “MacTavish,” for instance.
However not everybody on this 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 had been members of the identical household, we might have totally different final names.
The “first identify adopted by a household identify” mannequin isn’t common in fashionable occasions, and we definitely can’t apply it to historic India. We now have 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) isn’t problematic. The scriptures bear witness to the truth that he was referred to as Gotama, as a result of individuals usually name him that. They confer with 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 quite 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 will have issues like this, the place the Buddha is educating the Sakyans of Kapilavatthu, his house city:
The Buddha spent a lot of the night time educating, encouraging, firing up, and provoking 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 implies 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 named 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 isn’t essentially what we might consider as a household identify. You’ll discover that the Buddha, within the quote above, calls the Sakyans “Gotamas.” Sakya was a rustic. Beneath mainstream European naming conventions it’s not potential for even a small nation’s residents to all have the identical household identify. It could be that totally different households in Sakya had totally 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 had 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 probably that as a part of having their rulers legitimized, the Sakyans went by way of some sort of ceremony the place they had 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 comply with Vedic traditions, however non-Vedic peoples taking up clan names primarily based 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 inquisitive about his origins. The Buddha-to-be defined,
Their clan [gotta] is known as for the Solar [Ādicca],
they’re Sakyans by start.
I’ve gone forth from that household
So the Gotamas, or Sakyans, additionally glided by the identify Ādicca. This was one other epithet.
Generally 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 probably that each one Sakyans had 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. Possibly Sakya was their unique identify, with Gotama being assigned by a king and Ādicca being an epithet. We simply don’t know.
Rays of Gentle
It will get worse! The Gotama clan was also called “Aṅgīrasa.” This identify actually means “Rays of Gentle From the Limbs” but it surely refers back to the non secular descendants of the legendary Rishi (sage) Aṅgīras.
Some individuals have recommended Aṅgīrasa as the primary identify of the Buddha. It definitely sounds prefer it while 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 might be my grandfather within the Dhamma.
A word 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 simply wouldn’t anticipate a Stephen to even be a MacTavish, however within the Scottish clan system the Stephens are MacTavishes. Whereas my relations wouldn’t signal “MacTavish” on the dotted line, should you requested one among them what clan they belonged to the proper reply could be “MacTavish.” Possibly that’s just like how the Sakyan clan system labored. I don’t assume anybody is aware of.
Anyway, we now have a number of overlapping clan names (or “final names”) for the Buddha, however no clear first identify.
No names please, we’re enlightened
The Buddha in reality discouraged even using his gotra identify, Gotama, no less than should you had been one among 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 “good friend (āvuso) Gotama.” His response was:
Don’t tackle the Tathāgata by identify and as “good friend.” The Tathāgata, mates, is a worthy one, rightly self-awakened.
“Tathāgata” was how the Buddha typically 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 terms of names, the Sakyans, as in so many different areas, had totally 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 relations of the Buddha, and these seem like their private names.
So it’s vital that we don’t know the Buddha’s personal private identify. It could be that referring to the enlightened one by a private identify might need been a taboo.
It is likely to be just like how pictures of the Buddha weren’t made throughout his lifetime, or for a very long time thereafter.
After a number of hundred years of cultural change, individuals (the Greeks, to begin with) began creating Buddha pictures. Equally, after a time frame individuals began to provide the Buddha a primary identify: however they didn’t know what it initially was, so 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 should have one official identify. In observe, although, “Alexander MacTavish” would possibly use his full identify, or be known as “Alex,” “Lex,” “Al,” “Large Al,” “Sandy,” “Xander,” and so on. 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?” truly 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 might 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 occasions 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 might need been “Bimbā.” Yasodharā solely seems after her loss of life.
Throughout her life Yasodharā, to name her that for now, might need been recognized to totally different individuals at totally different occasions by some, all, or none of these names. The Buddha too might need had a number of names. He might need had one private identify as a toddler, after which one other identify as an grownup. He might need had totally different private names in numerous contexts — together with his spouse, dad and mom, mates, and so forth. He might 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 realizing what the Buddha was referred to as. Our minds are likely to wish to fill within the gaps, however on this case we don’t also have a sound foundation for guessing. Our minds wish to match the Buddha’s names into our fashionable, bureaucratically influenced naming conventions, however we might be sensible 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 could 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 ought to be may very well be like that, too.
An moral problem
Ethically, we should 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 will actually inform individuals he he was referred to as Gotama. Individuals did name him that. We will say that Gotama was one thing like a final identify.
We will nonetheless name the Buddha “Siddhārtha” or “Siddhattha,” after all, however we also needs to clarify that that is one thing akin to a title, and never a primary identify as we perceive that time period in the present day.
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 realizing. When there’s cause to be unsure, we should always chorus from false certainties.
When one thing is unknown, it’s trustworthy to say that it’s unknown. And the Buddha’s private identify is unknown.
Wildmind is a Neighborhood-Supported Meditation Initiative. Click on right here to seek out out in regards to the many advantages of being a sponsor.