Buddha: His Life, his Doctrine, his Order c11.s2.22

c11.s2.22

The following leads me to deny the antiquity of the tradition, which makes Buddha's father a king. When (as in the Sonadanasutta of the “Dîghâ N.”) the external claims of Buddha to respectful consideration are discussed, it is always admitted merely that he has come of an “uccakula, khattiyakula, addhakula;” it is emphasized that he, when he entered on a spiritual career, forsook relatives and friends, gold and silver; the kingly dignity of the family is not alluded to. If anywhere, it is with reference to a circumstance of this kind, which assuredly could not have been suppressed, that the argumentum ex silentio is applicable. To this another consideration must be added. Anyone who knows the uniform care with which the titulary appellation of persons appearing in the Pitakas is observed, will also find this difference decisive, that Buddha's father is there named merely Suddhodhana Sakka (“Mahâvagga,” i, 54, and cf. the passage cited above from the “Mâhasaccakasutta”), just as mention is made of Anuruddha Sakka, Upananda Sakyaputta, &c., while Bhaddiya, who was really king of the Sakyas—if we may call this petty râjâ a king—is regularly introduced as Bhaddiya Sakyarâjâ (“Cullav.” vii, 1, 3 seq.). Moreover, Suddhodana is addressed “Gotama” (“Mahav.” l. c.), as the Mallas are called Vâsetthâ, the Koliyas Byagghapajjâ, but no one says to him “Mahârâja” as to Bimbisâra or Pasenadi.—The oldest evidence which attributes to Suddhodana the kingly dignity, as far as I know the only passage of the kind in the Tipitaka, occurs in the Mahâpadhânasutta (“Dîgha N.”), where a series of notices of the lives of the last seven Buddhas is thrown together. In a systematic manner, exactly as in the passage apparently modelled on this Sutta, “Dîp.” xvii, 3 seq., there is recorded the length of life, the parentage, home, tree of knowledge, Sâvakayuga, &c., of these Buddhas. The three first were kings' sons, the following three Brahmans' sons, the last is again a king's son, the son of Suddhodhana râjâ. Possibly similar is the statement also in the concluding portion of the Buddhavamsa—it would be quite in keeping with the character of this text; I regret not to be able to make any statement on this part of the said texts as it is not accessible to me at present. There is no need of enlarging to show that in any case evidence of this description must retire before the momenta previously brought to bear on this question. From the Buddhavamsa (Phayre MS., fol. ju’) I have noted the verse:—