Gautama/prince Sittharta

[plachon]

Could some kind person please enlighten me about the distinction between these two name for The Buddha? I've heard both of them used and never been sure, if there is a time and place for using each or they are interchangable? My wife always seems to use the latter name as it seems to be the norm in Thai teachings, so why is Gautama not popular here?

[Gohonzon]

Gautama Buddha (approximately 563 BC - 483 BC) was born Siddhartha Gautama (Sanskrit form, or Siddhatta Gotama, Prakrit form); the title Buddha (enlightened one) was later bestowed upon him by his followers. He is also commonly known as Shakyamuni (or Sakyamuni), "The sage of the Shakya/Sakya clan", and as the Tathagata (untranslatable: roughly, "The thus-come one" or "The thus-gone one", emphasizing the nature of a Buddha to go about in the world without adding or subtracting anything from his experience.)

So usually Buddha is referred to by this name rather than Gautama.On the other hand if one accepts that there have been countless Buddhas throuhout 'incaculable aeons',then Buddha Shakymuni can be used to specify He that gained enlightenment unerneath the Bhodi-tree and subsequently taught/preached Dharma (law,truth).Although it's true to say that the name Buddha Shakymuni-likewise Gautama-is rarely used by Thai people.

Given that most Thai's understanding of Buddhism is generally quite basic-the more precise nuances are something that they may well be either unfamiliar with,or are unimportant to them:In which case the name Buddha suffices perfectly and without detraction.It's much in the same way that if you were to ask someone from a Christian background and/or culture why the name Jesus,for instance, was used and not the Messiah; I think the probability is that you'd be answered with something like: "Dunno,we just do."

I hope that this helps

[plachon]

Indeed it does.

Here's another one or two to fill the gaps in my ignorance: How long after Siddharta Gautama Buddha's death was his life documented by scribes? How many versions were there and which one is considered "the original" from what must have been quite a few aural versions of events? And lastly, how accurate do you think the years of birth and death given are and on what basis?

PS I'd understood He lived to the age of 85, but your figures indicate a ripe old age of 80, if my maths is correct, which is still pretty good even by modern life spans standards (average life span in Laos and Cambodia are sub-60, and probably not much higher in India).

[andyinkat]

Two or three things you have to appreciate here plachon.

The climate in the parts of Asia where Buddhism initially thrived is such that written records don't last long at all. Writings were usually on palm leaves and perished pretty quickly.

There is a major chasm of understanding between traditional Eastern ways of transmitting teachings and modern Western assumptions. In the West the assumption is that written records are reliable and oral transmission is suseptible to the 'chinese whispers' phenomenon. The traditional Eastern assumption is actually the other way round. Written transmission is unreliable and oral transmission is far superior. Why? Because if you read something without understanding you aren't actually learning whereas if you are taught orally by a teacher who has both memorised and understood the text and has the wisdom to impart just as much as you can deal with and explain it all to you, then you learn.

So it is that there was really no need to commit the Buddha's teaching to writing for a long time. Because the Buddha was teaching for some 45 years after his enlightenment there was plenty of time to ensure his disciples had understood and memorised the teachings. Immediately after his passing a convention of 500 enlightened followers was held in which the teaching were recited, agreed upon and preserved.

It was a few centuries later during a time of upheaval and warfare in Sri Lanka, when the monastic sangha was in danger of being wiped out that they 'fell back' on the policy of writing the teachings down and thus the Pali Canon was created, but after that and until this day the teachings are properly transmitted orally.

Which 'version' of the scriptures is 'original'? In the early centuries there were many rival schools with slight variants in their oral teachings; the only survivor of those early schools is the Theravadan school with its Pali Canon. The others are partially preserved by Tibetan and some Chinese traditions. The Mahayana scriptures had their origins during the time before the Pali Canon was committed to writing; however the Mahayana position is not that the non-Mahayana teachings are in error but that their wisdom is incomplete, so they do accept the authenticity of the teachings.

Dates of birth and death: such historical issues were of no importance whatever in ancient Indian society and for scholars evidence is extremely sparce for dating all sorts of civilizations, individuals etc. The traditional dating of the Buddha's life (c. 563BC-483BC) is almost certainly inaccurate according to most western Buddhist scholars; the consensus at the moment appears to put his life about a century later, i.e. the 3rd-4th century BC.

Hope this helps.