That is one among a collection of articles the place I’ve been mythbusting issues individuals “know” concerning the Buddha. These myths embody the supposed details that he was a prince, that he was born a Hindu, and that he left dwelling after seeing “4 sights.”
Such factoids are current in virtually each e-book e-book concerning the Buddha and Buddhism. But if we glance with a little bit historic consciousness at our earliest sources — the scriptures — we see that none of this stuff 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 we’ve 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. 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 barely present in just a few very late texts, such because the Apadāna, the Buddhavaṁsa, and the Milindapañha, which post-date the Buddha’s demise.
Fairly than being a private identify, Siddhattha is an epithet, which is “an adjective or phrase expressing a top quality or attribute thought to be attribute of the individual or factor talked about.”
Individuals utilized many epithets to the Buddha, together with Sugata (the one effectively 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 hardly ever, 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 to be able to distinguish him from different, mythic, Buddhas.)
First identify, final identify? It’s not so easy
We are inclined to learn our modern assumptions about names again into historical 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 effectively. 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 kids 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 known 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 totally different final names.
The “first identify adopted by a household identify” mannequin will not be common in trendy occasions, and we definitely can’t apply it to historical India. We’ve got to let-go of some assumptions earlier than we think about the Buddha’s names.
The Buddha’s final names
That the Buddha was known as Gotama (Gautama in Sanskrit) will not be problematic. The scriptures bear witness to the truth that he was known as Gotama, as a result of individuals usually name him that. They check 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 slightly 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 known as Gotama.
However then within the scriptures you’ve got issues like this, the place the Buddha is instructing the Sakyans of Kapilavatthu, his dwelling 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 signifies that Gotama is not getting used as a private identify. It’s a gotra (clan) identify. The Buddha’s father, Suddhodana, can also 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 attainable for even a small nation’s residents to all have the identical household identify. It might 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 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 possible that as a part of having their rulers legitimized, the Sakyans went via some form 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 comply with Vedic traditions, however non-Vedic peoples taking up 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 in his origins. The Buddha-to-be defined,
Their clan [gotta] is called 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 possible that each one Sakyans have been known 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 Gentle
It will get worse! The Gotama clan was also called “Aṅgīrasa.” This identify actually means “Rays of Gentle From the Limbs” nevertheless it refers back to the non secular descendants of the legendary Rishi (sage) Aṅgīras.
Some individuals have urged Aṅgīrasa as the primary identify of the Buddha. It definitely sounds prefer it if 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 notice within the Entry to Perception translation of this discourse refers to an historical 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 concept of getting a number of final names. It’s not unknown, although. I mentioned earlier that you just wouldn’t anticipate a Stephen to even be a MacTavish, however within the Scottish clan system the Stephens are MacTavishes. Whereas my family members wouldn’t signal “MacTavish” on the dotted line, when you requested one among them what clan they belonged to the proper reply can be “MacTavish.” Perhaps that’s much like how the Sakyan clan system labored. I don’t suppose anybody is aware of.
Anyway, we’ve 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 truth discouraged even the usage of his gotra identify, Gotama, not less than when you have 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 “buddy (āvuso) Gotama.” His response was:
Don’t tackle the Tathāgata by identify and as “buddy.” The Tathāgata, associates, 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 the usage of “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 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 family members 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 is perhaps much like how pictures of the Buddha weren’t made throughout his lifetime, or for a very long time thereafter.
After just a few hundred years of cultural change, individuals (the Greeks, to begin with) began creating Buddha pictures. Equally, after a time frame individuals began to offer 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 many others. In fact, when 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 historical 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?
Think about the Buddha’s spouse. Most individuals who’ve studied Buddhism will confidently say she was known as Yasodharā, however in doing that they’re making a option to disregard the opposite names that she may need used or been identified by. Rāhulamātā (Rāhula’s mom) is the most typical identify by which she’s identified within the scriptures. Bhaddakaccānā can also be discovered a few occasions within the scriptures. Gopi is most persistently 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 identified to totally different individuals at totally different occasions 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 totally different private names in numerous contexts — together with his spouse, dad and mom, associates, 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 figuring out what the Buddha was known as. Our minds are inclined 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 trendy, bureaucratically influenced naming conventions, however we’d be smart to withstand that impulse.
If it helps, maybe we may think about that if it wasn’t necessary for early Buddhists to report the Buddha’s identify, it shouldn’t be necessary to us both. Within the psychological area the place his private identify would go, we may 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 ought to be may very well be like that, too.
An moral situation
Ethically, we should always not state one thing to be the case except we’re sure it was. We definitely shouldn’t say that the Buddha’s first identify was Siddhattha or Siddhartha. We are able to truthfully inform individuals he he was known as Gotama. Individuals 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 right this moment.
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 must create the phantasm of figuring out. When there may be motive 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 search out out concerning the many advantages of being a sponsor.