Many Americans like to “do” a Scottish accent. All of these attempts sound the same, but none are particularly similar to actual Scots. The problem is, when Americans speak a Scottish accent, they’re not imitating any Scottish person they’ve ever heard, they’re imitating another American with a Scottish accent. Who will now imitate another American with a Scottish accent? and so on…
The American “Scottish” accent has come into its own, quite detached from the reality of how Scots actually speak.
typical buddha story
The same thing happens with books and articles about Buddha. Many times I come across accounts like this:
Buddha was born as Siddhartha Gautama. His father was a king who wanted him to take the throne when he was older, and kept young Siddhartha out of contact with the world, surrounding him in luxury in three palaces where he was not allowed to go out.
However, Siddhartha was very curious and persuaded the coachman to take him to the surrounding towns. There Siddhartha saw the old man for the first time. He is shocked by this, but the coachman tells him that this is the fate of everyone. On two subsequent trips, Siddhartha was again shocked to see sick people and corpses. Again the coachman told him that this was the fate of all of us, including Siddhartha.
On his fourth journey, Siddhartha sees a sage walking through the town with serenity and composure, and believes that spiritual practice is his only hope for finding meaning and spiritual peace in this impermanent world. I realized that. So he snuck out of the palace in the middle of the night and “went out” to a holy life.
This is not a quote from a book or article, but something I put together myself, but I’m sure you’ve seen something similar many times.
The problem is, none of that is true. At the very least, if you look at the scriptures, you won’t find evidence for it, or you’ll find evidence that directly contradicts it.
Many books and articles about Buddha and his teachings sound a bit like the American “Scottish” accent I described. These are imitations of other books and articles, which themselves are imitations of other books and articles, and probably date back to the late 19th century. When people in the West started taking Buddhism seriously, they realized that Buddha was a historical figure like Plato or Socrates, not a mythical figure like Zeus or Odin. Like America’s “Scottish” accent, these descriptions have developed a life of their own and only bear a passing resemblance to the real thing. And in the case of the Buddha, the closest thing to the “real thing” is the early scriptures. .
Usually we learn these typical explanations long before we encounter these scriptures. And since we had already been informed that the Buddha’s father was a king, we read Suddhodana’s account and imagine him in a palace, surrounded by advisors and courtiers. When we read the scriptures, we see things that are not written there. Our original understanding of who the Buddha is remains untouched.
Buddha was not a prince because his father was not a king
Today I would like to clarify that Suddhodana was not a king, and the territory in which he lived, the Buddha, was not a kingdom. Other misconceptions will be discussed in a later article.
Sakya, like its neighbors, was a republic ruled by a council of elders. There was no king there. Therefore, Buddha was not a prince.
During the time of Buddha, northeastern India had both a monarchy and a republic. In the map below, Kosala was a kingdom ruled by Pasenadi and later by his patricidal son Vidudhava. The Sakyans and their neighbors the Kolyans and Maras lived in a republic.
The republic was not a democracy in which everyone had a say, but an oligarchy (rule by a minority) in which the head of the most powerful family was in charge of the government. There were councils of elders making decisions, sometimes attended by broader councils representing other families and perhaps industry groups who wanted to ensure their interests were represented.
The leader of the council was not the king. They had the title ‘Raja’, but not ‘Maharaja’, which kings like Pasenadi and Vidudhava were called. In this context, raja meant more like “chief.” Countries with republican forms of government were less developed socially and technologically.
Sakuya wasn’t just that.
A monk from Kosala gave an extremely unflattering picture of the Buddha’s people to outsiders: They are primitive and will remain primitive! ” Of course he was biased.
Sakya was not a wealthy territory. It was rural and relatively poor. The council would have been held in a wood and mud hut that bore no resemblance to a royal palace. In fact, excavations in the area have not uncovered any palaces or impressive buildings at all. The wealthiest people there, like the Buddha and his people, lived in wooden tenements, with animals kept on the ground floor and families living on the upper floors.
This was very different from the lives of the leaders of neighboring princely states. In the Kosala kingdom, the king lived in an actual palace and had a standing army, which Sakya lacked. Standing armies were a way for kings (and the lands they ruled) to become rich. They could conquer neighboring lands, seize their wealth, and demand taxes.
One important sutra describes how, as a boy, the Buddha sat under a tree while his father plowed the field. Presumably, as a landowner, this is what Suddhodana actually did. Some describe the scene as ceremonial, like the planting of trees or the laying of foundation stones for modern-day monarchs. But what the would-be Buddha did under the tree was to enter a natural meditative state, which is less likely to be a solemn event that would have included an audience, a speech, a religious ceremony, and a blowjob by a man. They are incompatible. About conch. But if you imagine a quiet rural scene where the head of the household goes about his daily business, it makes perfect sense.
How did people come to see Buddha as a prince?
If the Buddha was not a prince, how did people come to think of him as such?
Descriptions of the Buddha as a prince appeared only a few hundred years after his death.
While the Buddha was still alive, the republic was a vassal state of a much more powerful monarchy. Shortly after his death, Sakya was brutally invaded by the Kosala king Vidudhabha. Eventually, monarchy became the only form of government known to the people. After hundreds of years of monastic rule, people would have almost forgotten that there was an alternative. Therefore, when people thought about countries in the past, they thought that those countries had kings.
In reality, the Buddha left the wood and mud house where he lived on livestock and became a religious wanderer. This is important, but not so dramatic that he could be seen as a prince who abdicated his throne. It requires a much greater sacrifice and proves that he is a man capable of achieving great things.
cling to belief
There is nothing wrong with believing the myth that the Buddha is a prince because you have been told it so many times. It’s natural to believe what a seemingly reliable source says. Especially when so many people are saying the same thing.
Maybe you still don’t believe me, but if you look into the history of Sakya and other north Indian republics, you will find that Buddha was not and could not have been a prince. You’ll understand.
Maybe you’ll appreciate a more accurate view of history.
However, some people get angry when it is pointed out that they believe in myths. In some cases, it may be because they have a “religious” view of Buddhism, even if they say the opposite. In other words, it treats Buddhism as a set of propositions to believe, even if it says the opposite. Anyone who points out their mistakes is treated like a blasphemer of any religion. They are insulted, told to shut up, and told they don’t know anything.
Or maybe you don’t want to admit you were wrong. It’s an ego issue and that’s what we’re trying to escape from. Not clinging to beliefs was an important element of the Buddha’s early teachings. Of course, he emphasized this precisely because we tend to stick to what we believe. However, it is ironic that people emphasize that they are the most faithful in practicing the Dharma (i.e. the Buddha’s teachings) by refusing to let go of beliefs that are clearly false. And when he criticizes those who follow the Buddha’s teachings as “bad Buddhists.”
Why is it important?
Integrity is fundamental to being an ethical person. If we are not ready to face the truth, we cannot live ethically. Because it’s more “efficient” to do something bad and just lie to yourself and others about it. It’s efficient because it means you don’t have to put in as much effort.
The ethical thing to do when you realize you’ve misinformed is to correct yourself. When people refuse to do that, it’s usually related to a false belief that correcting yourself is a sign of weakness, which in turn is because you’re clinging to your ego, and you’re trying to escape from it. That’s what I’m saying. Therefore, when you realize that something is not true, it is ethical to let it go.
The opposite of defensiveness is humility, which is a powerful spiritual virtue. Humility allows you to recognize and admit when you were wrong. Humility is the practice of radical self-honesty.
I also believe that by recognizing the truth of who Buddha was, we can draw closer to him. The development of the Buddha taking the heroic step of giving up his position equivalent to that of a millionaire may be meant to inspire us. “If he could give up all of that, you could give up less.” But it also seems like the Buddha was fundamentally different from us. His biography becomes a fairy tale. He becomes inauthentic on some level.
The mythical Buddha is one that can be worshiped from a distance across a vast bay. For me at least, a real human being is someone I can empathize with, understand, and relate to.
Buddha was very real. He was watching his father plowing the field. He sat in a meeting hall made of wood and earthen walls, listening to old men rambling about sacrificial rituals, water rights, and disputes over cattle encroachment on fields. He then decides that this isn’t for him (for reasons I’ll explain later, but it has nothing to do with seeing the four sights) and decides to search for the truth. And having found the truth, he taught:
Here someone avoids false statements and abstains from it. He speaks the truth, is true to the truth, is trustworthy, trustworthy, and is not one to deceive people. Attending a meeting, among the people, in the midst of relatives, in society or at the court of a king, and called as a witness and asked to tell what he knows When he doesn’t know anything, he answers: I don’t know anything,” and if you know, you say, “I know.” If you haven’t seen anything, say “I haven’t seen anything.” If you have, say “I’ve seen it.” Therefore, he will not deliberately lie, whether for his own benefit, for the benefit of others, or for any benefit.
These are words to keep in mind when talking about the status of the Buddha in the Sakya Republic.
Wildmind is a community-supported meditation initiative. Click here to see the many benefits of becoming a sponsor.
The stock is currently priced at $8 per month.
