SuttaCentral
I’ve heard he is sometimes called ‘buddha’ in Western India (Śvetāmbara Jainism), but as a ‘disciple of the Jains’ he is certainly not the heroic, emaciated Bodhisatta. His popularity and overall friendliness bring him closer to the likes of Gaṇeśa, Budai, Phra Sangkachai… In some depictions he is even chubby, for a Jain:
It makes me think of the kaala naag, the very black cobra in the video with the Sinhalese letter “pa” on its hood.
It’s interesting that the Divyavadana associates the naga kings Krsna and Gautamaka with the western ocean, far from Magadha.
Yeah, good catch there as well. “Muṇḍasāvako” is interesting in mentioning muṇḍa again.
Not quite sure what to make of it all as of now.
Mettā
Krsna could be ‘kaṇhā’ as well, here, so that adds up. Interesting catch! There definitely seems to be something going on with the name ‘Gotama’/‘Gautama’ in the east.
Mettā
In your translation of this at AN 5.294, you say “a follower of Gotamaka.” Would this not be “a follower of Gotama,” considering the -ka suffix is being added at the end of all of the names to derive the name of the follower? You translate “māgaṇḍiko” as “a follower of Māgaṇḍiya” for instance. Or is there reason to think that this is “a follower of Gotamaka” still?
Also, the Gotamaka shrine was apparently to a yakkha named Gotamaka. This makes sense considering yakkhas were the tree-spirits and were quite popular among the indigenous religious practices/adopted into the Aryan cosmology loosely it seems. So we have snakes and yakkhas named Gotamaka.
Mettā
And also in the Deccan, as apparently Gotami is another name for the Godavari river…
yes, you’re right, I’ll correct it.
How is this “wild”? Everything about the Bodhisatta’s austerities sounds exactly like the Jains; he said that he believed that pleasure was only gained thru pain; and in the Deer Park, where he met the five ascetics, there is today a Jain temple. He was at the very least following a path that was very similar to Jainism.
Fascinating! But wouldn’t that strengthen his association with the historical Buddha, who rejected extremes of fasting?
Hol up, where is this from?
“Wild” because the Bodhisatta’s austerities mentioned in Buddhist suttas are not specifically Nigantha or Jain practices. This is concluded from what has been discussed in another topic here:
And I have read that many scholars and historians dismiss the probability that the Bodhisatta was a Jain disciple before his enlightenment.
Do you suggest that the Sakyans were not Aryans?
I’m not suggesting they weren’t Aryans, historical records and archaeological evidence makes it clear that they weren’t for a long time after the Buddha’s life. The Sakyans were considered ‘mixed’ between pre-Aryan aboriginal peoples and some Aryans. Culturally, they did not accept the authority of the brahmins
/ Aryan religion or the caste system. The majority of them would have likely been non-Aryan (though its hard to say statistics exactly of course), and there would have been mixed and newer Aryan immigrants coming in. Their neighbors, such as the Koliyans, Mallas, etc. were the same.
Mettā
Okay, fair enough, some of these practices are not Jainish, but many, perhaps most are. One thing about it is that it must clearly describe a series of different practices done over an extended period of time, for example, the different kinds of garments.
Probably he tried many different things, but that doesn’t preclude the fact that among those things were Jain practices, and hence he could well have spent a period of time as a Jain ascetic. It was six years, plenty of time to do lots of things.
The Prince Bodhi Sutta (MN 85) says:
“Prince, before my awakening—when I was still unawakened but intent on awakening—I too thought: ‘Pleasure is not gained through pleasure; pleasure is gained through pain.’
Which is a fundamental Jain tenet.
One thing I think is that we are probably too quick to assume that people must have belonged to one group or another, or even that there were clearly differentiated groups. Of course to some degree that was the case, but I suspect that there were also a more-or-less floating pool of ascetics with more-or-less greater affiliation with one group or another. It takes time to develop ordination processes that clearly define the in-group.
Which, if it is true, both makes it quite possible that the Bodhisatta both was and was not an actual Jain. Maybe some people thought he was, others that he was not.
Heck, the same thing is even true in modern Buddhism. Poke closely enough at different traditions and you’ll find someone who is regarded at large as being a monastic, but who others say is not really ordained.
I think this is what must have been going on with the Buddha’s initial teachers (Āḷāra Kālāma and Uddaka Rāmaputta). As you and others have pointed out, there could very well be Upaniṣadic connections here. But I really don’t think they were Upaniṣadic sages in the same sense as we see in the actual Upaniṣads. What we know of their practices and things also seems somewhat different. I get the feeling that they may have been trained in and inherited certain recitation lineages of pre-Upaniṣadic texts, as well as mixed in śramaṇic ideas and their own innovations/meditation practices. Maybe they adopted some contemplative Brahminical ideas in debates and discussions and things.
The same could hold true of the Bodhisatta’s later practices as you point out here as well 
Mettā
From a 2015 PhD dissertation, Lauren Michelle Bausch, “Kosalan Philosophy in the Kāṇva Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and the Suttanipāta”
In the “Sundarikabhāradvāja Sutta” (Sn 3.4), the Buddha denies being a brāhmaṇa or any other varṇa category, but then four verses later states that he should not be not considered a brāhmaṇa, showing off his knowledge of the Sāvittī (Skt. Sāvitrī mantra).386
The Buddha says, “For if you say you are a brāḥmaṇa and you say that I am not a brāhmaṇa, I will ask you about the Sāvitti, consisting of the three quarters and twenty-four syllables.”387
Emphasizing that he has learned of one of the most important Vedic mantras, traditionally taught after a year of Vedic studentship, again reinforces Gotama’s understanding of Vedic tradition and his implicit relationship to it.388
Brett Shults shows that while the description of the Sāvittī having three quarters and twenty-four syllables is perfectly in line with Brāhmaṇa texts, it finds no parallel in any Pāli text outside the Suttanipāta, except commentaries.389 The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa records an early description of the upanayana rite, which P.V. Kane explains literally meant “leading” or “taking near” the brahmacārī
(student) to his ācārya (teacher) for instruction.390
According to the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, a brahmacārī was to be taught the Sāvitrī in the gāyatrī meter only.391 The ācārya bears the student in his womb by placing his right hand on the student; on the third night the student is born as a brāhmaṇa along with the Sāvitrī.392 The Śatapatha does not mention any rules for initiation based on varṇa.
By showing that he knows the Sāvittī in the gāyatrī meter (three padas with eight syllables each), the Buddha indicates that he learned the verse appropriate to Vedic initiation and was reborn as a brāhmaṇa. Though the Buddha never directly identifies himself as a brāhmaṇa, in hinting that he knows the Sāvitrī in the gāyatrī meter, he implies that he is familiar with very specific brāhmaṇical practices.
Thanks for sharing!
This is interesting. It seems like something more may be going on here. That the Buddha would say that he’s a brahmin because he knows a Vedic mantra as validation to literal brahmin by birth is… sonewhat out of character. The line here also doesn’t quite fit in. The Brahmin never said that the Buddha wasn’t one; the Buddha himself said that he wasn’t one, to which the Brahmin said that he was just politely asking.
If anything, the whole thing (as is typical) is about how a brahmin = an ethical person / an arahant, not knowledge of Vedas or rituals. It seems that there may be a missing verse, a misattributed quote, or missing context here. Anybody know of any parallels they could check or some extra context from the commentary perhaps?
Mettā
Hi Kaccayanagotta, yes there is probably more going on, since these are but a couple of paragraphs from a PhD dissertation that’s 202 pages. You may be able to find it online. It’s out of Berkeley.
Checking out some excerpts now. This is a fascinating article.
This may help answer some of the uncertainty surrounding the connections to the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad / Vedic thought in Buddhism (it is the goal of the dissertation after all).
The only things I’m slightly “worried” about—in that I can see them easily leading to the same mistakes made countless times—is the seemingly heavy assumption that the Suttanipāta is a reliable, particularly ancient text different from other suttas in a special way, and the seemingly literalist interpretations of some terms. The author writes in a footnote, for instance, that the Sutta Nipāta shows “notable concern with proper ritual offering,” and that the Buddha may have only rejected animal sacrifice. Um… Lol. But we’ll see!
Mettā
Lauren Bausch is a wonderful scholar, Sanskrit expert, and person!
She teaches at Dharma Realm Buddhist University in Ukiah, CA
Since this is still relevant to a Brahminical gotra tangentially, going to leave this in this topic (it’s short as well).
@sujato
In Richard Gombrich’s short article here on the references to Yājñavalkya’s teachings, he argues that the following section refers to the actual ātman—the same one famously criticized in MN 22 that references the seen, heard, thought, etc. and is believed to directly refute Yājñavalkya—rather than to the reading favouring a reflexive pronoun (and found in the commentary):
For a similar line, he argues it should also be read in reference to the ātman, along the lines of “When one sees one’s benefit in the ātman, then one is relying on a peace which depends on what can be upset”:
Do you have any thoughts on this / could you evaluate it? It seems the second may be a stretch, I’m not too sure.
[Side note: this paper (or extract) is very short and succinct (27 pages) and goes into the Buddha’s potential connections to the Upanisads/Vedic thought more concretely. It is quite compelling! It’s interesting too that the brahmins in this school apparently come from a sub-division of Angirasa! Going to spend some time with the full dissertation to learn more. I think this may be further ‘proof’ of the Buddha having learned first under Brahmin hermits, and perhaps even became a ritual Brāhmana. I wondered if his name (Gotama) could somehow be adopted from his ascetic practices. This seems mostly unlikely, but another dimension to look into, especially now that there’s reason to think he may have become a ritual brāhamana.]
Mettā!
Excellent writer. Smooth and light as a puff of air.
