Are sugar, the name "Gautama," and the lineage of Okakka all connected?

Discussion
1

Several years ago, Bhante Sujato said some interesting things about the origins of the Gotama/Gautama gotra, and their mythological connection with king Okakka (Ikṣvāku), who is sugar, personified.

First, the Sakyans having the name Gautama is often used to suggest a connection with Brahmanism, since Gautama is the name of one of the ancient rishis. He’s the legendary originator of a a textural and ritual lineage to which the Sakyans are supposed to have belonged.

Yet the Sakyans show little to know signs of having embraced Brahmanism. I haven’t come across a single sutta where the Buddha has a discussion with a Brahmin within Sakya. (If you know of any, please let me know. I may have missed something.) When the Brahmin Ambaṭṭha visited Kapilavatthu, the Sakyans were highly disrespectful, giggling at him and not so much as offering him a seat. And the importance of trees in the Buddha’s life (and the earliest-known Sakyan shine having been a tree) suggests they may have been animists rather than followers of the Vedas.

In puzzling over the origins of the gotra name, Gautama, I noticed that RIshi Gautama is credited with creating the Godāvarī river, one branch of which is called the Gautami. (His other claim to fame is giving Indra 1000 vaginas :flushed:) This river myth is explicitly tied to irrigation and agriculture.

The Gautami flows through the states of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Both of these are important sources of sugar cane in India. And their position on India’s east coast makes them a likely site for the introduction of sugar cane from New Guinea, which is (apparently) where sugar cane originated.

So the Gautama legend is to do with irrigating crops in an area where sugar is a main crop — moreover, an area where early (i.e. several centuries before the Buddha) importation of sugar-cane might well have taken place. And the Okakka legend is connected with sugar. These two legends concerning the Sakyans may, therefore, be connected.

So, maybe the Buddha’s ancestors had some historical connection with the Gautami river, and took their name from there rather than directly from the rishi? Perhaps an ancestor came from there?

This is wildly speculative, of course, but we’re talking about myth, and it’s hard not to think “creatively.” In fact it’s kind of essential.

Your thoughts are welcomed.

4 Likes
2

Interesting idea. Do you have any more details of the river branch named “Gautami”? When it was named thus and why?

The disdain of the Sakyans for Ambattha is noteworthy, but remember that the Sakyan republic was part of Kosala, and brahmins were strong in Kosala.

My understanding is that the brahmin name Gotama, and similar cases such as Aggivessana, were used of khattiya families following the lineage of their purohita. During the rajasuya, a khattiya is temporarily “promoted” to brahmin status, and it seems they would retain the name.

2 Likes
3

I hadn’t even thought about the dating of the river’s name! According to this site it’s mentioned in three of the Puranas, but apparently estimates of their date vary widely.

The fact that other nearby peoples had gotra names that traced back to Rishis would seriously weaken any case for the name Gautama being taken from the river rather than the rishi!

1 Like
4

Yes, the Mallas are called Vāseṭṭhas (DN 33:1.4.5), and Saccaka is called Aggivessana; he was the son of Jain parents from Vesali (MN 35:4.2). There may be others.

1 Like
5

That by itself doesn’t prove they weren’t Brahmins, as Pāṇini gives a grammatical rule to explain how a janapada may be called a brāhmaṇaka-janapada - as referring to a janapada populated and controlled politically and militarily by armed brahmins (i.e. those that had taken up the role of the kṣatriyas for themselves). So the vāsiṣṭhas and gautamas could possibly have been brahmin.

If they were then it might stand to reason why the buddha is not described as meeting any “brahmin” in his place of birth, like one wouldnt be described as meeting an “American” in America, i.e. it would not convey anything remarkable.

‘Brāhmaṇaka’ by another grammatical rule is a term that applies to “brahmin by birth only” (or in name only) who practiced other trades that were normally out of scope for brahmins.

The practice of kṣatriyas using temporary brahmin surnames was a practice that rarely lasted beyond the immediate requirements of a vedic ritual. It was not a permanent surname.

1 Like
6

Manu says the Mallas were Ksatriya:

So you say. I understand that this is your view, but the evidence of the Pali texts is, rather, that Brahmanical gotra names were widely used in reference to ksatriya clans.

3 Likes
7

When the Buddha met Brahmins, he challenged their religious beliefs and practices. Are you suggesting that for some reason he didn’t do this if the Brahmin he met happened to be a resident of Sakya?

The Sakyans (and the Buddha himself) consistently describing themselves as khattiyas and looking down on Brahmins also seems to rule out them considering themselves to be Brahmins.

1 Like
8

If we’re going my secondary proofs; Buddha seems to know great deal about Vedic culture, beyond what a Brahmin would teach to a stranger. He also seems to have no problem appropriating the word “brahmin” freely, even redefining it’s usage. Those seem hardly compatible with someone not being born a brahmin.

That’s kind of like as a Turkish born, me speaking about what it makes a true Englishman. People would be like, what are you talking about? Dhammapada Brahmins chapter sounds extremely weird to me coming from a purebreed kṣatriya.

I’m not positing something definite in any case. I hardly know anything about kṣatriyas acting as brahmins or brahmins acting as kṣatriyas. I’m just saying there are some peculiarities that are hard for me to explain. :slight_smile:

9

The lines were a lot more blurred than we think. The Upanishads themselves give plenty of examples of ksatriyas or others practicing with brahmin teachers, or brahmins seeking teachings from ksatriyas, etc.

More generally, it’s a bad idea to read history via galaxy-braining. I see this all the time. “If it says this, it must have been the other!” The Sakyans were obviously ksatriyas, as were the Mallas.

More like what you as a Turk would say about Turks from a different class. Which people do all the time.

1 Like