Robin Beck

Perfect work. Thanks for this sites

"Twenty years after his coronation, Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, visited this place and worshipped because here the Buddha, ***the sage of the Sakyans***, was born. He had a stone figure and a pillar set up and because the Lord was born here, the village of Lumbini was exempted from tax and required to pay only one eighth of the produce." Minor Pillar Edict Nb1 (S. Dhammika)

'Hida Budhe jate Sakyamuni', 'Here was born the Buddha, the sage of the Sakyans'

I looked a long time, but am still not successful in finding the name "Shakyamuni Buddha" in the Pali sutras. If you or others can help with that, that would be most wonderful.

According to T'ien-t'ai, Siddharta Gautama's career was divided into five periods, fifty years in total.

Avatamsaka (21 days);
Agama/Nikaya (12 years);
Vaipulya (16 years);
Prajnaparamita (14 years);
Lotus-Nirvana (final 8 years).

Surely, the same people who formalized the Agama sutras (from first 12 years) must have did the same for the Mahayana sutras (that was taught in the next 38 years).

Hi wonder,

My take is that the Nikayas are accounts of Gotama's historical life. These may have existed in oral forn before he was widely known as the Sage of the Shskyas. The Mahayana Sutras are more like posthumous allegories or legends.

Also, the Nikayas generally refer to him as Bhagavan {seson. the blessed one} or tathagata {nyorai, thus come}. These same terms appear in the Mahayana Sutras. I think the name Shakyamuni actually does appear in some of the Nikayas; and Gotama might be fdound in some of the Sutras.

In Asia and Mahayana he is simply more widely known as Shakyamuni Buddha; while in Theravada he is widely known as Gotama Buddha.

Most sources will you Shakya was his clan, but I think that was actually his tribe. I think Gotama was his clan name. Siddhartha was his given name. His titles include Buddha {Awakened One}, Bhagavan, Tathagata, and Shakyamuni.

People I have met who try to make an issue of these different titles generally have an agenda.

Nichiren refers to the founder of Japanese Tendai as both Saicho and Dengyo Daishi. Saicho was his name; Dengyo Daishi is a posthumous title. Both names refer to the same person.

This is from a Theravada source:

Siddhattha Gotama: Knowing the Buddha

"The Buddha is named Siddhattha Gotama (in Pali) or Siddhartha Gautama (in Sanskrit). His name Siddhattha means "wish fulfilled", while Gotama is his family name. The Buddha was born a member of the Sakya (Sanskrit: Shakya) clan, the ruling clan of Kapilavattu (Sanskrit: Kapilavsatu). Hence, the Buddha was also popularly known as Sakyamuni (Shakyamuni), meaning 'the sage of the Sakyans'."

Thanks Robin, for taking the time to answer.

Why then does the Nikayas not refer to Gotama by his posthumous title, like in the Mahayana sutras?

What could be the reason?

Hi, Shakya refers to Gotama's tribe. Muni means sage or saint; it is the same shonin in sino-japanese.

Shakyamuni means "Sage of the Shakyas" and I think is a posthumous title. The Mahsyana Sutras were recorded later, so this name is used.

Siddhartha was his given name, Gotama was his clan, like a surname.

Kobo Daishi was never called that while alive. He was known as Kukai. Kobo is a posthumous name. This is common.

Does that help?

Ever wondered why the name "Shakyamuni Buddha" does not appear at all in the Pali Canon? The Nikayas, that are the collection of Pali suttas, refer to the Buddha as Gotama, Buddha, or Gotama Buddha. But never as "Shakyamuni Buddha."

Then we have another group of sutras - the Mahayana sutras - in Sanskrit. These always address the Buddha as "Shakyamuni Buddha."

What could be the reason?

This is a response to Charles - I think it would be cool if you did in fact print some of thoe letters here, of course with a paragraph or two mentioning the context, as well as the fact that you got a special visit from an SGI VP for your efforts. Did you ever hear back from PI? Sometimes "fighters" like you get a present or something -- like some juzu.

This topic is a difficult one for me. I have had to face the fact that maybe I'm not as "advanced" as I had hoped I was. If picking fights is how we show our enlightenment, then I don't want to be enlightened. I've decided I want to cultivate peace in my thoughts and in my daily life. So, no rebuking or remonstrating for me, unless I see that someone is actualy being harmed.

Stay well and happy,everyone, Best,Byrd in LA

"Internally though, we do try to remain true to Nichiren's critiques of where others went wrong, and when teaching Nichiren Buddhism we do go into the four admonitions and other such things."

I assume every Nichiren School feels like they do that. Most seem to think the other Nichiren Schools have it all wrong. They seem to see a need to correct each other; but are less concerned with correcting non-Nichiren Schools.

I wonder what Nichiren would think of Nichiren Buddhists fighting each other over the exact format of the Honzon?

There are many historical reasons why Nichiren Shu today generally takes a shoju approach. Some of it was just capitulation to totalitarian governments, some of it was due to becoming a part of the general Buddhist establishment. But there are some other factors that I find quite legitimate:

1. In Nichiren's day you really could take over temples by outdebating your opponents. But since the Tokugawa shogunate temples can no longer be shuffled around like that and sectarian lineages are more fixed and established. So really, the only thing debating will get you now is a reputation for belligerence and obnoxiousness.

2. The forces of militariam, imperialism, modernism, secularism, communism, Christian missionaries, etc... have created a situation where Buddhists have to hang together or hang separately. There now needs to be a solidarity in the Dharma.

Those seem like good reasons for not engaging in polemics anymore.

Internally though, we do try to remain true to Nichiren's critiques of where others went wrong, and when teaching Nichiren Buddhism we do go into the four admonitions and other such things. We just don't take that as a license to go out and pick fights.

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

Having followed the spirit of guidance like the one you offered up, I wrote 37 letters of remonstration against Nichiren Shoshu, beginning in 1991 and culminating in 1995. All told, I wrote more than 31,000 words of refutation, ending with a certified letter from the chief priest of Myogyoji temple demanding that I cease and desist from commmunicating with the temple. I was told to declare victory and received a home visitation from the ten touring, SGI VP Tokuda. There, I presented Mr. Tokuda with a bound copy of my letters to present directly to PI.

I want to testify to all your readers that such an effort is not without powerful effects. Having described those results elsewhere, I will only say that it was like poking the karmic tiger and taking a swipe or two from the beast. It's a wonder that I survived. I took refuge in the Buddha and remembered Nichiren's fearlessness - I think that's how I met the challenged and advanced.

I am here to tell you all that Soka spirit, or whatever we are calling it these days is a license to look outside yourself and transfer your scorn and self-righteousness to your enemy. To my reckoning, there is barely a lick of difference between the SGI and Nichiren Shoshu doctrine. It's like pointing into a mirror or hating your identical twin.

I can assure you that when you start remonstrating as perscribed, you are essentially drunk or spiritually high on your superiority and the truth of your way. That's where the delusion is fed. So convinced are you of your correctness, that you lose all objectivity and surrender your critical thinking skills - because if you did have your Buddha-wisdom cap on, you'd see that your remonstrating with yourself, really. It takes some honest self-reflection to realize that this is more about ego than core doctrines. Take the will and transference from master to disciple of the successive presidents and contrast that to the true lineage and life blood of successive high priests and you have a spiritual DNA match.

My understanding is that the fight goes on and on. I suppose my work now is to encourage each side to look at itself. Perhaps I will publish those letters to illustrate how you poke the karmic tiger and to demonstrate the ferocity of delusion. To do so would be a humbling experience for me as proud as I once was of what I had written and done, I now see it as an exercise in spiritual invective of the most startling kind.

Charles