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.
Siddhartha's Princely Status--Myth or Reality?
Dakini
Veteran
[According to the Pali Canon] "the Buddha's father was not a king but a nobleman of the Gotama clan, who would have served as chairman of the Assembly in Sakiya. At most he would have been a sort of regional headman or governor. Sakiya was part of the powerful kingdom of Kosala, ruled by King Pasenadi from the capital city of Savaatthi. 'The Sakiyans are vassals of the King of Kosala' acknowledged Siddhartha Gotama. 'They offer him humble service and salute him, rise and do him homage and pay him fitting service'." D 27, iii.83.
This, from Stephen Batchelor.
This, from Stephen Batchelor.
0
Comments
Could I ask though....
Does it really matter?
If it doesn't matter, why is the myth so widespread? Is there some clinging to that? Leaving the palace and the palatial luxuries for a life devoted to alleviating suffering seems to carry some significance for some people. Although he would've had some luxuries anway, as son of a headman or governor.
Dharma Field has a really good post that addresses the "what's the point" question, on the "Englishman's Journey Through Buddhism" thread.
Sometimes I think back on episodes in my youth, and remember them one way, only to be told by my own mother, "No, that's not what happened.... your aunt said this, and so you did that....."
It doesn't mean it's a myth, it merely means that a lot of people have told and re-told the same story many times. Some call his father a king, some a nobleman.
It sometimes amounted to the same thing, in those days.
In ancient time, the united Kingdom, had more than one king at a time.... in different areas, so authority was shared, and there were many kings, but not all of one country. But they were all 'kings' or leaders of their tribes, or great warriors, or clansmen,.... semantics.....
It makes for a great setup to a really good myth. Prince, all worldly pleasures, kept away from the reality of the outside world, and so forth... it makes for a great setup for the presentation of the 4NT, which in turn makes a great setup for the 8FP.
So as a myth, it's perfect. I don't know if it fits the classical definition of myth from an expert like Joseph Campbell or someone like that, but it makes for a great myth. "Siddhartha the Accountant" or "Siddhartha the Patent Attorney" just doesn't have the same "oomph"- know what I mean?
My point is to always ask how supportive such questions are of my practice.
Do they affect it?
in this case?
No.
His father may have been a minor monarch, where as Pasenadi may have been a more powerful king.
In short, very much unrelated to Dhamma.
Buddhism is as full as fairy tales & myths as any other religion.
Example, Jataka Stories.
One sutta in the DN has a creation myth.
Try the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha
Similarly, I'm interested to some extent in the historical truth that Christian mythology is based on. If Jesus didn't die after the Crucifixion, and did, indeed, go East to teach, that's pretty significant! All these questions are fascinating. To some people anyway. Those who aren't interested in these questions can leave the thread for others to enjoy.
What's the point?
if you discover the Buddha was actually the slave of some princely family, and actually herded goats, would that make any difference to your practice, now?
The only way to verify for yourself whether the Pali texts are accurate, is to see whether they work for you or not.
Why such a deep analytical interest?
Where, in the end, will it get you?
How will your practice benefit from this?
help me get this, please!
But like you, I like to know things.
And people's pursuit of the unknowable is an anathema to me.
later.
"The evidence of the early texts suggests that the Buddha was born in a community that was on the periphery, both geographically and culturally, of the northeastern Indian subcontinent in the 5th century BCE.[13] It was either a small republic, in which case his father was an elected chieftain, or an oligarchy, in which case his father was an oligarch."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism#Life_of_the_Buddha
In the end, as federica implies, it doesn't really matter. We need to approach the writings with a light touch. Pali scholar Rupert Gethin is of the opinion that all we can really know of a Siddhartha Gautama is that he was a wandering ascetic in the sramana culture of ancient India who built up a substantial following of monks and nuns by sometime around 400 BCE. Theravada teacher Jack Kornfield (and student of Ajahn Chah) calls such stories "the marketing tactics of the spiritual trade." I am inclined to believe the prince-turned-renunciant story is a work of creative license. It is interesting and sometimes a useful metaphor for Buddhist philosophical points. But ultimately such stories should not influence your perception of the Buddha's teaching: lend no more credence to the teachings of the Buddha than you would any other philosopher, whether from ancient Greece, Jordan, or present day America, until you have tried it for yourself.
Bravo for being supportive like always Cloud, at least one mod is.
We carry our knowledge around in words. This is our species' memory. If we accept it, it is true to us. If we do not accept it, it is not true to us.
Of course it matters whether it is fact or fiction!
Buddha's life story, and the story of other actors in the Pali cannon, is inspirational. And the knowledge that the stories are true can increase the power of inspiration. And inspiration is important and builds the faculty of confidence.
If we found out that that the buddha was actually a womanizer and scam artist are you guys saying that no Buddhist out there would be demoralized?
If someone found out that their meditation teacher threw temper tantrums might that not weaken their resolve to practice?
Personally, I love the stories of the Buddha at more than one level:
as an historian and amateur archaeologist, I am fascinated by the dating and authenticity debate and know it to be unresolved.
As a storyteller to children and a poet, I love the imagery of the prince shut away from worldly pain and his discoveries. A real 'quest' story in the best tradition.
As a very amateur pilgrim of the spiritualities, I find pointers to understanding in the legends and the myths.
As a practitioner, on my cushion, they matter not one jot.
There is no unitary "I", there is a symphony orchestra.
It kind of sickens me hear monks being called Venerable. Or referring to the Dalai Lama as His Holiness. It defeats the whole purpose.
BTW, Epicurus, the reasoning behind practitioners using those titles (like performing prostrations) is that it's an opportunity to practice humility. Those holding the titles in theory are unattached to them (and to the luxuries that accompany the title). But your point that revering some above others contradicts the Buddha's view of the caste system (as did the caste system itself in Buddhist Tibet) is a good reminder.
When I moderate I moderate.
When I participate, I participate.
Don't confuse the two. I don't.
I think that sometimes people misconstrue my meaning:
The Buddha gave us 4 unconjecturables: They pretty much sum up the major factors that would send us doolally if we spent too much time trying to figure them out.
But I sometimes feel the list is not comprehensive, and that other things could be added, or at least taken into consideration.
Why do Police officers need or call upon so many witnesses to an incident?
Because if you ask six witnesses to an incident to recount what they witnessed, each will give a generally recognisably similar account but each will also add or elaborate according to their perception. Everybody will bring something slightly different into the equation, and add something of their own assumption.
So I think we can safely say that the generally-accepted and well-known account of the Buddha's origins are pretty much well agreed all round.
Embellishment is what adds intrigue, mystery and supposition.
But fundamentally, I fail to see really of what enormous importance it is to try to get the 'accurate historical facts'.
I don't believe they exist. All accounts are conjecture, from a point.
Moderation. I for one have difficulty following long quotations from the sutras.