Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

The Buddha's Name

FlorianFlorian Veteran
in Buddhism Basics
I have come across a lot of refrences to 'Gautam' Budhha, with no 'a' on the end. Where does this spelling come from? Is it correct?
federica

Comments

  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    It depends on provenance and colloqial usage... In Sanskrit, it's 'Siddharta' in Pali it's 'Sidhattha'....

    In Italian, we often delete the last vowel in a word to make the whole phrase 'scan' better. It's frequently done in songs...

    For example:

    The correctly-written Italian phrase would read:
    'Andiamo a raccogliere le Stelle Alpine' (Let us go and gather the Eidelweiss')

    In the song, it's written thus:

    'Andiam' raccogliere le Stell' Alpine....'

    Naturally, it would make more sense if you could hear the tune.

    I can - in my head..... but that doesn't really help very much - does it...? :D
  • misecmisc1misecmisc1 I am a Hindu India Veteran
    Florian said:

    I have come across a lot of refrences to 'Gautam' Budhha, with no 'a' on the end. Where does this spelling come from? Is it correct?

    i may not have got your question correctly. but i think what you are asking is why there is written Gautam instead of Gautama - i dont know the exact reason for it, but i have found that most of the names when translated from Sanskrit or Hindi into English gets a 'a' appended to in the last. like Lord Rama even though as per Ramayana, the name is Ram and the epic is Ramayan. So usually i have seen that names in Sanskrit or Hindi, when getting translated to English, gets a 'a' appended in end. But some places Ram is also written in English, though less frequently i have seen. So i think it usually depends on the style of writing of the author. if he is to append 'a' at end, then he will do it in all names which he uses. Like for example the reference which you used, there was Gautam Buddha - so the author was not using the style of appending 'a' at end. If the author would be using the style of appending 'a' at end, then the author might have written Gautama Buddhaa.
  • musicmusic
    edited May 2013
    If he is gautama, who the heck is Sidhartha? Or does he have two names?
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    I always wondered that about Gandhi, too. I hear it as Mohandus and Mahatma both and I've never known if there is a different or if it's translation or what.
  • poptartpoptart Veteran
    Doesn't Mahatma mean "great soul"? I think Mohandus K. Gandhi was his birth name.
  • musicmusic
    karasti said:

    I always wondered that about Gandhi, too. I hear it as Mohandus and Mahatma both and I've never known if there is a different or if it's translation or what.

    Mahatma is a title, a compound word in sanskrit (maha+atma or great+soul). Mohandas is his actual name.
  • misecmisc1misecmisc1 I am a Hindu India Veteran
    poptart said:

    Doesn't Mahatma mean "great soul"? I think Mohandus K. Gandhi was his birth name.

    @poptart: @music is right. Mahatma is maha+atma or great soul. @karasti: Gandhi's birth name was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Mahatma was a title given to Gandhi - i think this was because of his non-voilence and his modest nature.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    music said:

    If he is gautama, who the heck is Sidhartha? Or does he have two names?

    Name and surname....

    Logical, isn''t it?

    Invincible_summer
  • John_SpencerJohn_Spencer Veteran
    @federica - More metaphysical question: Were Sidhartha and Shakyamuni the same person?
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    Yes.

    'Shakyamuni', means 'Of the Shakya Tribe'.

    That's the name of the 'tribe' his father was king of....

    There's nothing metaphysical about it....

    My Grandfather's surname was 'Mantovani', which means 'from Mantova' (Mantua, in Brit-speak.)

    It's a name of provenance.
    Invincible_summer
  • CinorjerCinorjer Veteran
    Both Sanskrit and Pali, it's either Gautama or I have seen some translations spell it Gotama. I did a quick google of Gautam Buddha and what I see is a handful of websites that all appear to originate in India with the shortened name in the title. Inside the websites, they still refer to Gautama.

    I did a quick email to a buddy who has been to India, and here's what he said. Gautam is an ancient and not uncommon name in India. Many people are and were named Gautam and another variation, Gautami, both first or last (family) names.

    However, Buddha from the beginning was supposed to have been named Gautama, which is another intentional variation of the traditional name. So I suppose references to Gautam Buddha are from native Hindi speakers who are much more familiar with that name and maybe not paying attention to the translations.

    Invincible_summer
  • FlorianFlorian Veteran
    Thanks everyone. @Cinjorer especially for the explanation. Very useful.
  • John_SpencerJohn_Spencer Veteran
    edited May 2013
    federica said:

    Yes.

    'Shakyamuni', means 'Of the Shakya Tribe'.

    That's the name of the 'tribe' his father was king of....

    There's nothing metaphysical about it....

    My Grandfather's surname was 'Mantovani', which means 'from Mantova' (Mantua, in Brit-speak.)

    It's a name of provenance.

    Thank you and let me re-phrase my question:

    Were Sidartha and the Tathagata the same person?

    (... and the context of this question is metaphysical).

  • lobsterlobster Crusty Veteran
    Were Sidartha and the Tathagata the same person?
    Yes and no.
    Yes Sidartha gave rise or was the cause of the uncaused awakened Tathagatha.
    No because the awakened is without causality.

    If a prince, pauper, stable born, merchant, tribal leader, judge, jury or prison inmate becomes enlightened, the awakened is the same in essence (Buddha Nature) as the realisation of the Buddhas. The expression, due to past, present and position may be very different.

    Sidartha died.
    The Tathagatha, dharmakaya is . . . well . . . let us leave that empty . . .
    :wave:
    riverflowpersonInvincible_summerJohn_Spencer
  • John_SpencerJohn_Spencer Veteran
    Excellent @lobster. I like the cut of your jib.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    It depends what you are conceptualizing when you say "siddartha" and "tathagata"..

    The diamond sutra says there are no beings and no lifespan. So you would be forced to say that siddartha was mentally labeled as such. With the trikaya in mind I think Siddartha was more the nirmanakaya manifestation. Some people only see Siddartha and for that reason Nirmanakaya manifests for them. That is out of the compassion of all of the Buddhas.
    riverflow
  • John_SpencerJohn_Spencer Veteran
    Jeffrey said:

    With the trikaya in mind I think Siddartha was more the nirmanakaya manifestation.

    I dunno @Jeffrey - I think that Siddartha was already dead when the Nirmanakaya manifested.

  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    @John_Spencer, What's in a name? Siddartha died but there are beings who cannot see a Buddha and they still have Siddartha to see?? I'm thinking of it that way. My teacher said from a perspective all of us are a manifestation of Nirmanakaya in a class I took if I am recalling and the context isn't the same here as in that class. The class was studying the Jewel Ornament of Liberation. That text (Lam Rim (study path/gradual) stated that the dharmakaya radiates to all beings, that there isn't a high or low amongst beings, and that everyone belongs to a 'family' of the Buddha meaning they have some form of contact as they are among one of the five families of Buddhas. So from that contacts we/nirmanakaya are a manifestation ie Nirmanaka. Actually all most of us see IS nirmanakaya each being having a path/connection. A bodhisattva who realizes the three marks steadily first of all sees that all beings have a path and second they perceive the Buddhas samboghakaya directly and sees Buddha everwhere... you might say they take all the manifestations of the world as a path and blessing.

    That's ^^^ just what I was thining, John, I can see why you say in your post also.. My thoughts tend to range around quite a bit.
  • John_SpencerJohn_Spencer Veteran
    edited May 2013
    Hey @Jeffrey I know that perhaps the point of my question was a bit baffling perhaps but I like your line: "Siddartha died but there are beings who cannot see a Buddha and they still have Siddartha to see".

    "A rose by any other name smells just as sweet" perhaps?

    It must have been very difficult for his family to understand who (what?) Siddartha became.
  • John_SpencerJohn_Spencer Veteran
    Could we say that the Buddha-Dharma existed before Sidddartha but not before the Tathagata?
Sign In or Register to comment.