Skip to content
buddhavacana

Gotama Buddha

A very short biography

Minimum viable biography

Section titled “Minimum viable biography”

A short description of Gotama Buddha, as described by an assembly of gods and deities in 7D/1.17 Devatārocana #185 (translated by me):

185. Indeed, Mārisā (venerable sirs), in this very fortunate aeon, the Bhagavā (Blessed One), a liberated one, a perfectly awakened one, has now arisen in the world. The Bhagavā, Mārisā, is a Khattiya by birth, arisen in a Khattiya family. The Bhagavā, Mārisā, is Gotama by clan. The Bhagavā’s lifespan, Mārisā, is short, limited, brief; [in this age] one who lives long lives for a hundred years or a little more. The Bhagavā, Mārisā, was fully awakened at the foot of an Assattha tree. The Bhagavā, Mārisā, had a pair of disciples named Sāriputta and Moggallāna, a chief, excellent pair. The Bhagavā, Mārisā, had one assembly of disciples of twelve hundred and fifty bhikkhū. The Bhagavā, Mārisā, this one assembly of disciples was entirely of those whose āsavā (“defilements”) were destroyed. The Bhagavā, Mārisā, had a bhikkhu attendant named Ānanda, a chief attendant. The Bhagavā’s father, Mārisā, was King Suddhodana. Queen Māyā was his mother, his birth mother. The city named Kapilavatthu was the royal capital. The Bhagavā’s, Mārisā, renunciation was thus, his going forth was thus, his striving was thus, his full awakening was thus, his setting in motion the Wheel of Dhamma was thus. We, Mārisā, having lived the brahmacariyaṃ (the optimal life) under the Bhagavā, having become dispassionate towards sensual pleasures, have arisen here.

This is clearly a hagiography, showing gods and deities acknowledging him, becoming divine as a result of following his teachings. Moreover, it is clearly referring to the Buddha in the past tense, as the passage is supposedly uttered by devā who have been reborn in heaven as a result of being taught by the Buddha in their past lives.

Beginnings

Section titled “Beginnings”

The Buddha was allegedly born in Lumbini sometime in the 5th century BCE from the Gotama clan of the Shakya tribe, in present-day Nepal, and spent his life living and travelling around the Ganges Plain (in what has been termed the “Greater Magadha” cultural region by Bronkhorst (2007) in Greater Magadha), near the modern Nepal–India border.

The origin of the Shakya tribe is unclear, and they have possibly mixed Aryan and indigenous lineage (Levman, 2014). They were an eastern sub-Himalayan ethnic group living on the periphery, both geographically and culturally, of Greater Magadha. The Buddha’s father (Suddhodana) was supposedly a member of the ruling oligarchy but this may have been an invention and he may have had humble beginnings. In any case, the Shakyans, who were organised into a gaṇasaṅgha (an aristocratic oligarchic republic) had become a vassal state in the Kingdom of Kosala by the time of the Buddha, so the Buddha was hardly a prince as portrayed in some accounts. The Shakyans were not well regarded by the brahmins, as narrated in 6D/3 Ambaṭṭhasutta.

According to 10M/3.5 Māgaṇḍiyasutta, the Buddha enjoyed a luxurious life before his renunciation:

604. “Indeed, Māgaṇḍiya, formerly, while still a householder, endowed and furnished with the five strands of sensual pleasures, I indulged in:

  • forms cognisable by the eye that are agreeable, pleasant, charming, alluring, accompanied by sensual desire, and stimulating;
  • sounds cognisable by the ear …
  • smells cognisable by the nose …
  • tastes cognisable by the tongue …
  • tactile objects cognisable by the body that are agreeable, pleasant, charming, alluring, accompanied by sensual desire, and stimulating.

For me, Māgaṇḍiya, there were three palaces: one for the rainy season, one for the winter, and one for the summer. Indeed, Māgaṇḍiya, in the rainy season palace, for the four months of the rainy season, being entertained by female musicians, I did not descend from the palace. Then, at a later time, having truly understood the origin, the passing away, the gratification, the danger, and the escape from sensual pleasures, having abandoned craving for sensual pleasures, having extinguished the fever of sensual pleasures, I dwelt without thirst, with my mind inwardly settled and calmed. Then I saw other beings still attached to sensual pleasures, being consumed by craving for sensual pleasures, burning with the fever of sensual pleasures, indulging in sensual pleasures. I did not wish for them, nor did I delight in it. For what reason? Because, Māgaṇḍiya, there is a delight — apart from sensual pleasures, apart from unwholesome characteristics — which even excels divine happiness — delighting in that delight, I do not wish for the inferior, nor do I delight in it.

Renunciation

Section titled “Renunciation”

According to 9M/4.6 Mahāsaccakasutta, as a young man he started to question the nature of existence, of being born and subject to the negative consequences of life such as growing old, falling sick, dying, sorrow. He started to search for a path out of these consequences, which are collectively referred to as dukkha (often translated as “suffering”, but more accurately meaning “unease”, “dissatisfaction” or “stress”).

1238. “Why should it not be, Aggivessana? Here, Aggivessana, before my sambodhi (full awakening), while still a Bodhisatta, not fully awakened, this thought occurred to me:

‘Household life is confining, a dusty path. Going forth is the open air. It is not easy for one living in a house to lead the optimal life that is utterly perfect, utterly pure, like a polished shell. What if I, having shaved off my hair and beard, and having put on saffron robes, were to go forth from the home life into homelessness?’

So, Aggivessana, at a later time, while I was still young, with jet-black hair, endowed with the prime of youth, in the first stage of life — though my unwilling mother and father wept with tear-filled faces — having shaved off my hair and beard, and having put on saffron robes, I went forth from the home life into homelessness.

At this time in India, there were broadly two major schools of thought, or ideologies, with regards to soteriology. One we now refer to as Vedicism, which was practised by some of the Indo-Aryan peoples of the northwest Indian subcontinent during the Vedic period (c. 1500–500 BCE). Vedicism eventually evolved into Brahmanism, and Buddhism after the Buddha’s death often competed with Brahmanism (eventually Brahmanism won and evolved into Hinduism, the dominant religion in India today).

However, the brahmins who practised Vedicism had not yet settled in the Magadha region (east of the Ganges plain) during the Buddha’s time, so it is unclear whether the Buddha would have been exposed to Vedicism as it was unlikely he would have encountered any brahmins (the accounts of him debating with brahmins and criticising them would seem to be later additions, since some of his supposed criticisms refer to aspects of Brahmanism that were developed after his death).

The other major school of thought was represented by the various śramaṇa (Sanskrit, samaṇa in Pāḷi) philosophies and practices, which were common in the greater Magadha region. The word originally would have a connotation of “weary” (as in someone who is weary of life and looking for salvation) (Shults, 2014).

Therefore, it is no surprise the Buddha renounced and became a “wanderer” (samaṇa). Initially, he was influenced by, and adopted various practices of other samaṇā, including extreme ascetic practices, and advanced meditation techniques. He eventually determined these practices and techniques did not provide the answer he was looking for, and discarded them.

Awakening

Section titled “Awakening”

He ultimately took a different approach and discovered the answer himself and attained “awakening” or “perfect awakening” (sammāsambodhi). The story of his life post awakening is told in the 3V/1 Mahākhandhaka, and the first 16 sections have been translated by me in Tidipa - Khandhaka.

There is an implication that by avoiding or eliminating dukkha, we can lead more peaceful, fulfilling and potentially productive lives. The Buddha himself made the decision to spend the rest of his life teaching others how to achieve the cessation of suffering, travelling around significant parts of ancient India, rather than sitting down contemplating under a bodhi tree. He eventually formed a community of followers which evolved into Buddhism today.

Soteriology

Section titled “Soteriology”

His teachings can be described as a “soteriology.” For more information, refer to Summary of Core Teachings.

What does “soteriology” mean? The Oxford Dictionary of English defines it as “the doctrine of salvation”, from the Greek sōtēria (“salvation”) + -logy (“study” or “discourse”).

So the Buddha’s soteriology is the Buddha’s understanding, and description of his “salvation”, which is the release, liberation, cessation and extinguishment from dukkha. Dukkha encompasses a broad range of afflictions, from a vague sense of unease and dissatisfaction, all the way to pain, loss, illness, old age and eventually death.

Was the Soteriology a “spiritual goal?”

Section titled “Was the Soteriology a “spiritual goal?””

Many people, including Buddhists, assume that because Buddhism is a religion, the Buddha must be a religious teacher, and the soteriology that he describes is about religious, or spiritual salvation, and the goal of the soteriology is some sort of spiritual, or mystical, attainment.

After all, that’s what the word “soteriology” usually implies.

However, if you read my summary of Buddha’s teachings, or even the Buddha’s own words describing his teachings, there is nothing that is inherently religious or spiritual about the soteriology. It would seem from reading the Buddha’s words, he was a rational and practical thinker. The soteriology in its basic form does not assume or confirm metaphysical questions such as whether we have an eternal self or not, and the Buddha has, at least in the core teachings, never claimed that what he attained was a divine or spiritual achievement, or that he has transformed into a divine or omniscient being.

Was the Buddha a human being?

Section titled “Was the Buddha a human being?”

According to the Mahākhandhaka, he was just an ordinary human being and remained so after he had achieved the soteriological goal. He still needed to eat, to rest, to sleep, and he conversed with others as a normal human being. He succumbed to illness, and eventually ageing and death. Clearly, he did not avoid or eliminate those outcomes.

However, after his death, various hagiographic details were added to his biography, such as miraculous events surrounding his birth, and various supernatural feats he supposedly performed during his lifetime. Perhaps he even tacitly encouraged such beliefs among his followers to help them have more faith in his teachings - see The Evolution of the Buddha.

After his death, he was venerated and worshipped by his followers, and eventually he was reified and deified into an omniscient perfect being - see Was the Buddha Omniscient?.

The last years of his life were spent travelling and teaching before passing away, as detailed in 7D/3 Mahāparinibbānasutta, a very lengthy narrative also full of hagiographic details.

References

Section titled “References”
Bronkhorst, J. (2007). Greater Magadha. Brill.
Levman, B. (2014). Cultural Remnants of the Indigenous Peoples in the Buddhist Scriptures. Buddhist Studies Review, 30(2), 145–180. https://doi.org/10.1558/bsrv.v30i2.145
Shults, B. (2014). On the Buddha’s Use of Some Brahmanical Motifs in Pali Texts. Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, 6, 106–140.

Backlinks