Then the Venerable Tissa, the Blessed One’s paternal cousin
So, really, why wouldn’t MN61 begin in the following way:
Now at that time the venerable Rāhula, the Blessed One’s son, was residing at Ambalaṭṭhikā
rather than how it actually does:
Now at that time the venerable Rāhula was residing at Ambalaṭṭhikā
?
The most straightforward explanation I can come up puts a question mark over the given legend, but it would be wonderful if others can suggest reasons why this detail wouldn’t be recorded in the suttas.
Perhaps there was some specific lineage of monks and teachers who traced their founding back to Rahula? If so, they might have had an incentive for concocting a special relationship between Rahula and the Buddha
Another possibility would be that the invention of a son for the Buddha was a way of combating vicious or salacious rumors.
For what it’s worth, in Rahula’s gatha, he says he is the Buddha’s son:
On the other side of the question, assuming Rahula was the Buddha’s son, the question then becomes why the earliest literature ignores that important fact.
It could be that fact that the Buddha had previously had a wife and son, and had not always lived the holy life, was found embarrassing by the earliest monastic compilers, and that only later did the tradition make its peace with that fact as instructive stories about the Buddha’s family life gradually made their way into the popular lay tradition.
Another possibility would be that Rahula was indeed the Buddha’s son, but was illegitimate, and this was felt to be sufficiently embarrassing that the compilers were discreet about it.
Another possibility is that the Buddha obscured Rahula’s true parentage from his followers, since he wanted Rahula to be treated like any other Bhikkhu, but that the knowledge was preserved though the gatha and the recollections of a few intimate relatives and acquaintances.
On a related question, isn’t there a discourse where the Buddha confronts, or hears the confession of, a man who slept with the Buddha’s (former) wife? Perhaps their was some doubt about Rahula’s true parentage.
Rahula is a curious case. It’s undeniable that he got a ‘special treatment’, not unique but unusual. E.g. the Buddha would instruct him without being asked. Or at least one of his suttas is a famous ‘collection-sutta’ where most meditation subjects would appear.
Strangely though him being the Buddha’s son seems to be completely commentarial. On top of that he’s a ‘Samyutta Nikaya bhikkhu’, appearing in the AN only twice (very shortly in AN 1.209 and AN 4.177), but having his own Samyutta.
He also appears often in the MN (but I would argue in expansion of SN suttas).
No mention in the DN!
Doesn’t the story have it that Rahula was ordained as a young boy - ie, he would have been observing the vinaya well before having the opportunity to father a child… ?
EDIT - ooops (again), I think I misunderstood your point. You mean their order was founded by Rahula.
Yes, although I suppose we don’t know for sure that he tradition is true, given how much obscurity there is around Rahula. But what I meant is that perhaps they traced their monastic lineage back to Rahula, not their biological descent. But if so, claiming Rahula was the Buddha’s biological son who had inherited his power, and who lived close to the Buddha and had received many private and unsolicited teachings from the Buddha from a young age, might have given that monastic lineage a claim to being special and more authoritative.
There seems to be some anxiety in the tradition about the question of inheritance. Rahula is said to have asked the Buddha for his inheritance, in response to which the Buddha had Sariputta ordain him. And MN3 is about the difference between dhamma heirs and worldly heirs. Think of the strife that has occurred in Islam over the question of Ali and his biological claim to the caliphate. In could be that there were early conflicts over similar matters in early Buddhism, and they have been lost to us.
Yes, I quickly realised my mistake and made an edit above to that effect (moral of the story: I shouldn’t drink coffee! ). I think yours is an interesting point, I’d definitely be willing to entertain.
Not a million miles away from the thought on the ‘heirs to the Dhamma’, reading the reference you gave to the Theragāthā got me wondering if there was any possibility that Rahula’s claim to be the Buddha’s son was figurative.
In any instance, while it is a little intriguing I have to admit the point is more just idle curiosity to me and for myself I’m inclined just to set aside legendary narrative (whether or not it is underpinned by historical reality).
strangely we have in the Therigatha the same claim about Kassapa in Thig 4.1
Putto buddhassa dāyādo, kassapo susamāhito
Son of the Buddha heir/inheriting, Kassapa well-established…
and again from a Gayākassapa (the same?) in Thag 5.7
Suddho suddhassa dāyādo, putto buddhassa oraso.
The pure heir of the pure one, A rightful son of the Buddha.
SN 22.76 has the verse about arahants
Those praiseworthy superior men
Are the Buddha’s bosom sons. (orasā, lit. own, legitimate, breast-ly)
In Thag 2.27 we hear from Nandaka
Ājānīyaṃ maṃ dhāretha, puttaṃ buddhassa orasa
You should remember me as a thoroughbred, The Buddha’s rightful son.
And in Thag 10.1 finally from Kāḷudāyi
I’m the son of the Buddha, the incomparable Aṅgīrasa, the poised—
I bear the unbearable.
You, Sakya, are my father’s father;
Gotama, you are my grandfather in the Dhamma.
Ugh, suddenly the Buddha has a lot of children - and grandchildren!!
I doubt there was a conspiracy theory. Maybe the details was left out because it was 1) obvious to everyone 2) irrelevant to the teachings 3) a monk dropped it by mistake.
The stock phrase ‘left with mother and father weeping’ is found in instances when leaving for ordination is described routinely (I think). So I don’t think it should be taken as an description of what actually took place. Stock phrases are used to aid memory retention.
Only brahmins are genuine children of Brahmā, born of his mouth, offspring of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā. As for you, you have renounced the best rank, and have gone over to that low class—to shaven recluses, to the vulgar rich, to them of swarthy skins, to the footborn descendants. DN27
‘Son’ is a lose term, as is ‘uncle’ etc. Its not familial- only connection is implied.
[quote=“Aminah, post:21, topic:5521”]The most straightforward explanation I can come up puts a question mark over the given legend, but it would be wonderful if others can suggest reasons why this detail wouldn’t be recorded in the suttas.
[/quote]
Perhaps because there was only one Rāhula among the Buddha’s disciples, but no end of Tissas — no fewer than three in the Theragāthā, and about a dozen in the Dictionary of Pali Proper Names (though some of these, admittedly, are recorded only in the commentaries.
Obviously, haha, I didn’t think the Buddha had a family clan suddenly
But it relativizes even the last EBT source claiming Rahula to be his son. If we go with the EBT we have to assume that Rahula was a heir to the Dhamma, and nothing else.
I also thought it might be because male monks recited this and in their mildly ‘autistic’ nature forgot to add the relationships status (no offence against people with autism)!
Makes sense, doesn’t it? In that case Kassapa won the competition, closely followed (literally in the zen tradition) by Ananda, and Rahula for some reason didn’t…
). I think yours is an interesting point, I’d definitely be willing to entertain.
