Was the Buddha married and father of a son

Discussion
41

:laughing:

Actually isn’t the implication of SN 22.76 that his family is really very much bigger. The verse there talks about “the arahants”, the later part of the verse indicates that particular text is only concerned with the male arahants, but I think there’s more than a sufficient basis to connect the dots with respect to the female arahants.

Now then, how many arahants do we have on record? All I can say, is that I’m not sure everyone would have been able to fit around the Christmas table! :wink:

42

From here:

You are my own legitimate sons, born from my mouth, born of Dhamma


Maybe it was just a way of speaking in a community whose constituents were quietly contented with the sense of companionship they shared with each other


43

C. F. A. Rhys-Davids translates Thig. 3.3 as:



Fulfilled is heart’s desire: I win the Void,
I win the signless! Buddha’s daughter I,
Born of his mouth, his blessed word, I stand,
Transported with Nibbana’s bliss alway (sic).



From this and all the other examples, I’d take it that this is just a stock mode of declaring one is an arahant.

44

This discussion turned out to be more interesting than I thought. Yes, I think that the EBT references show that there was a way of referring to oneself as ‘a son’, ‘a daughter’ of the Buddha. And rightly so! Going back to ‘a heir of the dhamma’ all arahants can rightly claim, ‘I am the Buddha’s son, born from his mouth’ (‘I’ as ‘this liberation’ and ‘the mouth’ as where the dhamma was well-spoken from).

thanks to @alaber for initiating and the others for contributing!

1 Like
45

I am known as “Fortunate Rāhula”,
Because I’m endowed in both ways:
I am the son of the Buddha,
And I have the vision of the Dhammas.
Thag4.8

The he above is very interesting! Ven Rahula talks of being the Buddha’s son ‘both ways’!

2 Likes
46

Not a son both ways; fortunate both ways. Only the first of the two ways references being a son in any sense.

1 Like
47

Yes, I noticed that, too, but at the same time, if we do accept that ‘son of the Buddha’ is akin to saying ‘an arahant’, then adding ‘I have the vision of the Dhammas’ would seem a bit superfluous, it would basically be to say the same thing twice which makes a bit of a puzzle of the ‘double’ endowment, leaving the literal meaning of son as the most obvious explanation.

Saying that, two things in this remain uncertain for me, 1) I’d (perhaps entirely mistakenly) understood the ‘the vision of the Dhamma’ to be synonymous with stream entry 2) in this translation Dhammas is pluralised - is this a typo? pointing to something in addition to the Dhamma? or
?

1 Like
48

“Buddha’s son” is also a term for practitioners of considerable attainment in the Lotus Sutra.

It’s not early, but it also attests to a historical usage of “Buddha’s son” that does not imply biological relation.

1 Like
49

Norman in his translation of this verse is undecided if to take it literally or metaphorically. He refers to Thomas for more discussion. So here it is, an excerpt from Thomas, Life of the Buddha, 1949, basically confirming what we found here as well:

In the Theragatha, a late work which the commentators themselves admit to be in parts no earlier than the third Council, Rahula is made to say, “ I am son of Buddha.” But this evidence would also prove that Buddha had four sons, for three other elders in this work say the same thing. Sirivaddha says, “ I am the son of the incomparable one,” Kassapa of Gaya says, “ I am a true son of Buddha,” and Kaludayin says, “ I am Buddha’s son.” But all Buddha’s disciples are frequently called in the same language Buddha’s true or genuine sons, putta orasa, 'sons of the breast.’


Even the Pali commentarial tradition is uncertain about him, and the other traditions show that they, if not all the others, had nothing certain to tell us.

1 Like
50

‘dhammesu cakkhum’

Seems to be Stream entry - the ‘Eye of the Dhamma’, when the dhamma is verified for oneself and faith is no longer required (nor a teacher, I think as enlightenment is certain in a maximum of seven lifetimes).

Uncertain. Maybe this refers to seeing phenomena rather than the ‘Teaching’, but that might be wrong.

With metta

1 Like
51

I think the Pali commentarial tradition is quite certain about him being the Buddha’s biological son. This discussion reminds me of whether Jesus was actually a historical person or not.

52

I wouldn’t be sure about THE commentarial tradition - we have many many texts here, not just Buddhaghosa’s commentaries. And they are often expressing many different views. Even Buddhaghosa doesn’t claim to know but often relates different versions. Thomas for example shows a bit how the wife of the bodhisatta is not always mentioned as the mother of Rahula etc.

1 Like
53

Yes, we should stick to EBTs.


that is a good example why.

Next thing you know we will be discussing the virgin birth, though I do believe in the dream of the elephant. :anjal:

With metta

54

Well, that would be one way to take things if that floats your boat. I’d sooner stick to the point that the commentaries’ credentials as a reliable source of information is a bit (to a bit more than a bit) shaky. In view of this and the fact that there only appears to be one potential (and potentially very late) reference to Rahula being the Buddha’s biological son in the suttas themselves, cumulatively the evidence can only lead me to the conclusion that the possibility that the Buddha had a son remains in doubt.

What the canonical evidence further leads me to conclude is that there is little doubt that what the Buddha was chiefly concerned wasn’t his personal family arrangements, but was rather in guiding people towards becoming his sons and daughters in the Dhamma.

1 Like
55

That’s right. He then becomes the father figure that replaces void of one’s parents, psychologically speaking.

With metta

56

Sorry, the trouble with reading things is that a person can end up running into new details willy-nilly!

It might fairly be taken as a bit of a different context, but would the following point slightly away from this possible explanation?

King Ajātasattu then 
 uttered the following joyful exclamation: “May my son, the Prince Udāyibhadda, enjoy such peace as the company of bhikkhus now enjoys!” (DN2)

How many Prince Udāyibhaddas would there have been?

57

Only one. The Pali, however, says:

Piyo me, bhante, udayabhaddo kumāro. Iminā me, bhante, upasamena udayabhaddo kumāro samannāgato hotu yenetarahi upasamena bhikkhusaáč…gho samannāgato ti.

I think the English translators (excluding Maurice Walshe, who uses just “prince”) take a bit of a liberty in translating the word kumāro twice: both as ‘son’ and as ‘prince’. The Continental translators seem to have made a better job of it:

RĂ©my:
«BhantĂ©, le prince Oudayabhadda m’est cher. BhantĂ©, si seulement le prince Oudayabhadda Ă©tait d’un calme Ă©gal Ă  celui de la communautĂ© des bhikkhous en cet instant!»

Anton Baron:
“Señor, el prĂ­ncipe Udayabhadda es muy querido para mĂ­. ÂĄSi tan sĂłlo estuviera dotado de semejante calma, que el Sangha de los monjes!”

KĂ„re Lie:
«Jeg er glad i lille prins Udayibhadda, og jeg skulle Þnske at han kunne bli like fredelig som denne munkeforsamlingen, Mester!»

R. Otto Franke:
„Ja, Herr, ich habe den Prinzen Udāyibhadda lieb, und ich möchte, Herr, er besĂ€ĂŸe dieselbe Seelenruhe wie diese Bhikkhu-Schar.“

Maurice Walshe:
‘Lord, Prince Udāyabhadda is very dear to me. If only he were possessed of the same calm as this order of monks!’

1 Like
58

Thank you, Venerable! Not knowing Pali at all definitely opens me to some hazards in this way. I will at times use available search facilities to (very roughly) confirm the right idea has been taken from the Pali, but never thought to do so here.

In fact, someone subsequently highlighted to me that the translation given a bit inventive here, but you beat me to the task of correcting myself. They noted that the Pali version in actually supports your theory.

2 Likes