What was the Buddhas Name?

[themiddleway]

 

From http://jayarava.blogspot.de/?m=1

 

This has no bearing on my practice but it is interesting nonetheless.

 

What was the Buddha's name?

In the Pāli texts his followers called him Bhagavan. Other people tended to call him Gotama or 'sāmaṇa' depending on whether they were being polite or impolite. Later is was established that his name was Siddhartha Gautama. In this essay I want to take a brief look at the evidence we have for what the Buddha's name was, or as we shall see, what it probably wasn't.

 

The name Siddhartha occurs in the Pāli texts, in the form Siddhattha, only in the Jātakas and later commentarial works. It is not used in the Nikāyas or Vinaya as the name of the Buddha, though it is used for other people. The Jātakas are legendary material which we can't take seriously as historical accounts. Siddhartha is used in the Sanskrit Mahāvastu - technically a vinaya text of the Mahāsaṅghika sect but actually an extended and much elaborated biography, really a hagiography of the Buddha. The fact is that the more strictly biographical accounts of the Buddha, such as the Ariyapariyesanā Sutta, make no mention of his given name at all! The best we can say is that apart from the name Siddhartha there is no other name mentioned as a contender.

 

Gautama (P. Gotama) is something of a puzzle because it is a distinctively Brahmin name. There are several well known Brahmin philosophers called Gautama, and even a Brahminical Gautama Sūtra. Gautama is a traditional Brahmin gotra (P. gotta) name. The gotra is like a clan name, and indicates people descended from a particular ancestor. While the Vedic Brahmins did not worship their ancestors, whom they referred to as the pitaraḥ 'the fathers', they did revere them and in earlier versions of rebirth theories the good Brahmin would leave this world and go to the world of his fathers (women were not included in this scheme) for a time before coming back to this world. A hint into the original use of this term is that it also means a cow (go) shed (tra, 'protection') - the image is of the herd of cows enclosed and protected, similar to the relationship of the individual to the clan group. Only a few dozen traditional gotra names are recorded (there are lists in the pre-Buddhist Bṛhadāranyaka Upaniṣad for instance). Monier-Williams' Dictionary suggests there are 49, and gives Gautama as one of his examples in his Sanskrit dictionary.

 

It is mentioned many times through the Buddhist canon that the Buddha was a kṣatriya - that is of the class (varṇa) [1] which is associated with rulers and secular leadership - sometimes kṣatriya and rāja 'king, ruler' are treated as synonyms. The other three classes were priests (brāhmaṇa) merchants (vaiṣya) and peasants (śudra). Although the Buddha's father was referred to as a 'rāja' at that time the Śākya nation was more like an oligarchy or republic. Rāja cannot really mean king or royalty in this context, and probably just means 'leader' and even then one leader amongst many. In the commentarial traditions we find that the Śākyas did not follow Vedic, but Dravidian marriage customs, suggesting that perhaps they were not Āryans [2] at all (though this is a late tradition it must have had the ring of truth to survive since it contradicts his being a kṣatriya, which is a more convenient appellation in caste conscious India). There are pockets of Dravidian speaking peoples in North India still and it is usually assumed that they were the aboriginal inhabitants of the Ganges plain and were displaced by the encroaching Vedic/Sanskrit speaking peoples. There is some doubt about this theory now, and of course it tends to ignore the other major language group in India - Muṇḍa - traces of which can be found in the Ṛgveda (see my discussion of the Dhp 1 and 2 for an example of a Muṇḍa loan word in Sanskrit and Pāli). In any case politically and it seems socially the Śākyas were distinct from the Brahmins - making the fact of the Buddha's Brahmin surname even more odd.

 

There is evidence that Brahmins were not above adopting clans into the Āryan class/caste system - sometimes making their priests honorary Brahmins. It has been suggested that perhaps the Śākyans employed a Brahmin purohita (a priest) and adopted his gotra name. If this is true it shows how very powerful the influence of the Brahmins was on the culture of Greater Magadha even at this early stage when it was dominated by the various śramaṇa groups. The Vedic languages were a powerful means of cultural imperialism.

 

To summarise then: while there is no other contender the name Siddhartha is not associated with the Buddha in the earliest texts, though Gautama is. Gautama however is a distinctive traditional Brahmin name which does not fit the general picture of the Buddha's non-Brahmin, probably non-Āryan background.

 

Such uncertainty does not sit well with religious sentiments, and so the legends which filled the gaps in our knowledge gained the status of facts: the Buddha's name simply is Siddhartha Gautama and we 'know' many details of his parentage and life. Of course it is possible that the legend is based on a fact not recorded in the suttas, however unlikely this seems. Perhaps the Buddha deliberately obscured aspects of his pre-enlightenment existence. I've noticed that occasionally when people wish to belittle me they will insist on using my birth name instead of my Buddhist name - particularly when denying the validity of my ordination. Perhaps the Buddha wished to create a bit of distance between that old identity and 'the Tathāgata'. Other details of his life are equally vague, and even more elaborately filled in by Buddhists. Indeed the further we get from the actual life the more elaborate the stories become until they leave behind any sense of historicity.

 

Does it matter? I think not. The Buddha is a symbol of our potential - every human being if they pursue the dhamma can become 'like that' (tathāgata), i.e. we can all have that experience which the Buddha had. The fact is that people have been having that experience ever since the Buddha's first disciples and right down to the present. Buddhists do not rely on the divinity of the Buddha. We have the dhamma - the ways and means of following the Buddha. We have the Saṅgha - each other, but more especially those with experience, with the experience, to support and guide us. The main reason for pointing out the problems with the hagiographic narratives is to prevent us from deifying that version of the Buddha who is more a product of human imagination than of history. Such a figure must remain a symbol and not become an idol if we are to retain the spirit of the Buddha's teaching.

[Simple_Jack]

There's an interesting discussion over at DW about the possibility of the Shakya clan's 'non-Indo-European heritage':

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=15613

 

Indrajala wrote: Elsewhere Zhen Li pointed out the Buddha's heritage was not entirely Indo-European:

 

Zhen Li wrote:Probably a mixture of some kind of Munda-indigenous heritage, with Indo-Aryan. Since the names used in the Sutras for people and places in the Sakya kingdom are often of non-Indo-European origin. There's also the prominent evidence of trace Naga cults and tree cults, (not to mention Yakshas) which are definitely indigenous, and Mucilinda's name can be derived from Munda. There's also multiple stories in the Pali Canon about cousin-intermarriage among Sakya ancestors, which was forbidden in Brahmanical society. Also, indigenous burial customs were mound-based, in round mounds, while the Indo-Aryans abandoned the Kurgan-like mound burials centuries earlier in preference for square burial chambers. You will also note that many of the names of the Buddha's disciples are odd from the Brahminical perspective, such as Shariputra, who is named after his mother. There's also some evidence that the notion of a Mahapurusha was indigenous.

One thing I discovered recently was that, apparently, a number of ancient Indian names and Indic terms, including those in Buddhist literature, have cognates in Akkadian and other Mesopotamian languages. Malati J. Shendge suggests in her work The Language of the Harappans: From Akkadian to Sanskrit that the earlier Indus Valley civilization, which she identifies as the Asura culture described in Vedic literature, was Akkadian speaking. One noteworthy Indic name of interest also found in Akkadian and Sumerian sources is Kaśyapa (in Pali Kassapa). One of the Buddha's chief disciples was Mahā-Kaśyapa. The past buddha immediately prior to Śākyamuni was called Kaśyapa.

 

• 1. Kaśyapaḥ:
  
  
  
  Kaśyapo Māricaḥ, PN composer of RV I.99, VIII.29; Rebhaḥ Kaśyapaḥ, family name of the composer of RV VIII.97. With this, cp. Sum. Kaššeba, king (priest-king?), Akk. Kaššāpu, sorcerer, (denotes sun-god Šamaš), also kašāpu, to use charms, bewitch, OB on, Kaššeba (=Šamaš)
  
  
  
  In Indian sources, the name was borne by the husband of Aditi and father of the Ādityas (Varuṇa, Mitra, etc. seven). He was obviously a very ancient mythical personage who was connected with creation.

Malati J. Shendge, The Language of the Harappans: From Akkadian to Sanskrit (New Delhi, India: Abhinav Publications, 1997), 208.

This is not so surprising given that Akkadian loanwords exist in Vedic Sanskrit according to Thomas McEvilley:

 

• In India in the late second millennium – the Middle Vedic period in terms of Sanskrit literary history – the reexpanding trade with the Near East brought with it elements of cultural diffusion. Contact with the Mesopotamian cultural stream may have left significant traces in the pantheistic hymns, of a type found widely in the Near East, in the the tenth book of the Rg Veda and in the appearance of Akkadian words in the Atharva Veda, both of which seem to have been taking shape at about the time the Near Eastern trade was revived.

Thomas McEvilley, The Shape of Ancient Thought Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies (New Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 2008), 2.

McEvilley dates the wave of Akkadian influence to around 1000 BCE (this is incidentally during the Bronze Age dark age), further identifying two Akkadian words apsu and tiamat which originate from the Creation Epic.

[dee]

-

Edited March 23, 2014 by dee

[steve]

I thought his name was steve.

 

[GrandmasterP]

I thought his name was steve.

 

It is now.

[thelerner]

To me, the great thing about Buddhism is his name isn't important. Nor his power, lifestyle or divinity etc., Its all about his teachings. They stand on there own, without claims to the supernatural.

[steve]

To me, the great thing about Buddhism is his name isn't important. Nor his power, lifestyle or divinity etc., Its all about his teachings. They stand on there own, without claims to the supernatural.

 

To take it a step further, it is sometimes said that [insert preferred name here] Buddha himself was not at all important as a person. I think some of that attitude is contained in the Zen koan regarding killing the Buddha if one meets him in the road..., although the koan goes beyond that simple aspect.

 

The teachings, as you point out, stand on their own. One of the wonderful things about reading or listening to the Dalai Lama is how strongly he emphasizes his common and humble standing. If the historical Buddha or one of the subsequent Buddhas were to stride through India or Tibet (certainly NYC) in their simple robes, teaching in their soft and unassuming voices, now or in times past, more likely than not they would have been completely ignored...

 

As far as "...without claims to the supernatural." goes, that is all a matter of perspective. Certainly, Buddhism does not posit a creator entity. Nevertheless, the vast majority of non-Buddhists, and many Buddhists as well, find things like emptiness, rainbow body, reincarnation, and the like to be quite supernatural. Much of that is related to misunderstanding but I think that can be said about the belief in a creator entity equally. To some, a creator is the most natural thing in the world. Again - all a matter of perspective and what one is accustomed to.