11 ms·

The article is correct in that Buddha being a prince is a myth. The Pali canon (Tripitaka) does not assert he lived in a palace, depending on the translation us

The article is correct in that Buddha being a prince is a myth. The Pali canon (Tripitaka) does not assert he lived in a palace, depending on the translation used. It states he was born in bhavana (Sn. 685) which has in the past been translated as palace but it simply means a place. When Buddha talks about his fathers abode he just refers to a house or mansion or family complex, using the word nivasana (A.I 145) which did not refer specifically to a palace or royal residence (vimana or mandira). nivasana was not used to refer to royal palaces until centuries after it was presumably written in the Tripitaka. Buddha also does not refer to his father as a king, but when asked he just said his dad was from Sakya clan (Sn 322,323,324).

GuiA 7y ago
Interesting. Reminds me of a similar example with Jesus, commonly thought to be a carpenter, but who was really a tektōn (At least according to the Gospel of Mark) which could be translated as carpenter or stonemason. Most houses in Israel at the time would appear to have been made of stone, and therefore stonemason seems like it’d be a more appropriate translation.
- weberc2 7y ago
  I've always been confused by the English definition of "carpenter". I always thought it was originally something like "woodworker" or a furniture smith, but it appears that most native speakers understood "carpenter" to mean "house builder". I wonder if at some time the same occupation referred to both or if I simply grew up misinformed?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - retrac 7y ago
    Carpentry is the construction of things by joining wood pieces together. Woodworker is more general and would include things like finishing, or carving solid objects out of wood, or any kind of wood work really. Furniture, frames for houses, and so on, are typically considered carpentry. Etymologically it comes from a Latin word meaning a wagon maker. In contemporary English, at least in North America, it's mostly used to describe those involved in the construction of things like wooden buildings, particularly the structural components like frames and roofs. But it hasn't completely supplanted the broader sense.
    - mantap 7y ago
      There is an interesting cultural dependence here. I live in England and we have very few wooden houses. I have always assumed Jesus's "carpentry" to refer to building furniture. It simply never occurred to me that he might be building houses out of wood.
  - edgarvaldes 7y ago
    > but it appears that most native speakers understood "carpenter" to mean "house builder". In Latin-America we use a very similar word: "carpintero" with the same origin. But the houses in the region are commonly made of concrete brick, so we don't associate "carpenter" with "house builder".
    - abecode 7y ago
      My brother is a carpenter and works with a lot of Latinos. He also does birdwatching as a hobby. Supposedly carpintero is also what they call woodpeckers.
      - cambalache 7y ago
        That's correct. But usually it's called "pajaro carpintero". Woody Woodpecker is called "El pajaro loco" though.
    - navaati 7y ago
      Well in French, "charpente" refers to the frame of the house, and the first thing you think about is a wooden frame, though in modern times it could be steel. A stone house wouldn’t really have a "charpente" I guess. And oftentimes "charpente" specifically means the roof structure (which is the only frame left in modern brick or concrete houses).
  - A_Parr 7y ago
    The word carpenter originally referred to carriages or carts. They just happened to be made out of wood and the people who made them were apparently willing to apply those skills to more than wagons.
  - gerdesj 7y ago
    Carpenter is a tricky term because wood is used in so many ways. This is strictly UK biased: In building terms we distinguish a first and second fix carpenter. First fix is mostly structural and second fix is the rest. If your hair is wet its probably first fix - roof trusses and the like. Second fix will include things like skirting boards. It's not a hard and fast rule and will probably involve the same people. These trades are known as "chippies" (sing. chippy). We also have cabinetry (your furniture smith - nice one) and other wood working trades. They are all called carpenters. A chippy is a carpenter and I think this a rare case where the nickname is more common than the real name. Civilians will often call a chippy a "builder". A cabinet maker is never known as a builder or a chippy. The chippy thing is because a very small piece of wood is a "chip". I think I know why you are a bit confused about the word carpenter. In the US and elsewhere, houses are mostly wooden. When a house is nearly all wood, then the word carpenter should mean builder. In the UK and elsewhere houses are built of sticks and bricks, mostly bricks.
    - wyclif 7y ago
      Americans often get confused when in the UK because "chippy" can mean either a carpenter or the fish and chips shop on the street.
      - gerdesj 7y ago
        To, not really, help counter that the shop is often called a "fish and chippery"!
        pbhjpbhj 7y ago
        Depends where your are, chipper is common to some, others say 'fish shop', some 'chippy'. Other people say they're "getting chips", or "having carry-out" and leave the place to be entirely implicit. That said, I've never seen it called the "fish and chippery", but it wouldn't surprise me to see that used.
        soylentcola 7y ago
- QuercusMax 7y ago
  Fascinating! That could explain why he gave Simon the name "Peter" (Stone), and references like "The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone" (Matthew 21:42, quoting Psalm 118:22.)
  - gerdesj 7y ago
    @BigOak. I think that Peter was a Rock and not just a stone - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter#%22Rock%22_dialogue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter#%22Rock%22_dialogu...
    - labster 7y ago
      That would explain his catchphrase: Can thou smell that which The Rock do cooketh?
  - sigzero 7y ago
    Matthew 21:42 is talking about the Pharisees rejecting Christ.
  - soylentcola 7y ago
    Simon was Pétros-fied!
- infradig 7y ago
  But tektōn means non-specically any craftsman or artisan, even a teacher or student.
ggm 7y ago
The article is correct in that Buddha being a prince is a myth. The use of the word myth in connection with religion always fascinates me. The entire concept of religion generally depends on myths. recursive use of myth in myth. Generally I have to read these sentences as in my opinion because the 'factual' quality of statements regarding the ur-myths of religion is usually not quantifiable, its all contextually defined by interpretation, semantics, ontology, eschatology, history, culture...
- alexmingoia 7y ago
  When I say myth, I mean in the sense that it’s not actually supported by the Tripitaka, which is the first complete written account of Buddha’s teachings by a lineage of his original monastic order (mostly confirmed by historical evidence where it exists) to survive as written to the present day, and considered canonical Buddhist teaching. It is most definitely quantifiable whether something is or is not written in the Tripitaka. That is why it remains important and historically significant.
  - ggm 7y ago
    So its not supported by the canonical text makes it mythic. Ok, I get it now. Apocryphal.
    - sls 7y ago
      Do you think there's a difference between "Ashoka warred with Kalinga" (contemporary and/or near-contemporary evidence survives) and "Ashoka built 84,000 stupas" (for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that there is no historical evidence for this). Because that's the distinction being drawn above.
  - jaldhar 7y ago
    One also has to bear in mind that the Tripitakha was compiled several centuries after the Buddha is said to have lived and has several divergent versions according to the ideological predilections of its editors. Also Pali was probably not the native language of the Buddha. The vernacular of the area where he lived and taught was call Magadhi. (The Jain Agamas are transmitted in a related language called Ardhamagadhi “half Magadhi”) Pali was prevalent in Avanti in West India (the geographical base of Sthaviravadins) not Magadha. The Sarvastivadins used Sanskrit, and Mahasanghikas used yet another language for their version. All of them claimed to have “The Original Teachings of the Buddha.” So I think attempts to find “fundamental” Buddhism are ultimately futile.
sombremesa 7y ago
Are you sure about this? "Bhavana" most certainly does not mean "a place" in modern parlance (see: "Rashtrapati Bhavan", which is the president's residence), and a lot of the other words have extant meanings in Hindi which differ significantly from what you've said here. Either Hindi has diverged a whole lot from Sanskrit and the meanings have changed (vimana literally means flying vehicle, and I'm pretty sure it's the same in Sanskrit), or you have some dubious sources.
- tasogare 7y ago
  > Either Hindi has diverged a whole lot from Sanskrit and the meaning have changed Yes it changed significantly. That’s why philology exists. And also why languages with long existence are classified in different strata.
  - sombremesa 7y ago
    I doubt philology exists specifically because Hindi and Sanskrit diverged. Anyhow, have the meanings of extant words common to both languages significantly diverged? Do you have a source?
    - riskneutral 7y ago
      The practice of Buddhism has nothing to do with arguing on the Internet about the exact meanings of words in an ancient language that Gautama Buddha didn't even speak (we are told he spoke Magadhi Prakrit, not Sanskrit).
      - sombremesa 7y ago
        Look, this is a discussion forum. I was under the impression that we were having a good faith discussion and I'm genuinely curious about my question, whether extant words in Hindi and Sanskrit have significantly diverged in meaning. You can antagonize me if you like, but you can also choose not to participate in this specific thread if you don't have a meaningful contribution.
    - 7y ago
factorialboy 7y ago
Bhavana does mean a palace. Mandira and vimana do not mean palace. Nivasa means residence and does not indicate the nature of residence. I am appalled by this comment. These Sanskrit / Pali words you quoted, these are not obscure words. Infact they are used today in most of North India. Your translations and assertions are completely wrong. I would expect a higher level of scholarship before one makes such a matter of fact comment.
- mantap 7y ago
  Is it not possible for a word to change in meaning over time? For example "mansion" in English means a big and expensive house befitting nobility, but in the original Latin it just means a dwelling.
  - sessy 7y ago
    Unlike English, the Sanskrit words do not change over time. Because in Sanskrit what you speak is what you write and what you write is what you speak.
    - jfoutz 7y ago
      > Sanskrit words do not change over time. That is amazing. I've only used english and a touch of spanish, and those words are so slippery. Even latin has a drift over time. i've poked at Aramaic, but never more than a week or two of half hearted effort. I'm really interested in Sanskrit now. Perhaps 5 years of concentrated effort to access thousands of years of writing sounds amazing. I have a hard time with Twain, much less Chaucer. English slips so much, so quickly. I suppose there really aren't puns or double entendres though. I can't imagine how semantics would survive the abuse of irony for thousands of years.
      - kranner 7y ago
        > > Sanskrit words do not change over time. > That is amazing. GP is simply incorrect here. Sanskrit dictionaries list multiple meanings per word sometimes with the period during which a meaning was prevalent. Puns and double entendres are particularly common in classical Sanskrit literature. http://murthygss.tripod.com/some_characteristics_of_sanskrit.htm#double%20entendre http://murthygss.tripod.com/some_characteristics_of_sanskrit...
collyw 7y ago
How are you sure that this particular version of history is correct and the far more popular version (where he is a prince) is wrong?

GuiA 7y ago

Interesting. Reminds me of a similar example with Jesus, commonly thought to be a carpenter, but who was really a tektōn (At least according to the Gospel of Mark) which could be translated as carpenter or stonemason. Most houses in Israel at the time would appear to have been made of stone, and therefore stonemason seems like it’d be a more appropriate translation.

weberc2 7y ago
I've always been confused by the English definition of "carpenter". I always thought it was originally something like "woodworker" or a furniture smith, but it appears that most native speakers understood "carpenter" to mean "house builder". I wonder if at some time the same occupation referred to both or if I simply grew up misinformed?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- retrac 7y ago
  Carpentry is the construction of things by joining wood pieces together. Woodworker is more general and would include things like finishing, or carving solid objects out of wood, or any kind of wood work really. Furniture, frames for houses, and so on, are typically considered carpentry. Etymologically it comes from a Latin word meaning a wagon maker. In contemporary English, at least in North America, it's mostly used to describe those involved in the construction of things like wooden buildings, particularly the structural components like frames and roofs. But it hasn't completely supplanted the broader sense.
  - mantap 7y ago
    There is an interesting cultural dependence here. I live in England and we have very few wooden houses. I have always assumed Jesus's "carpentry" to refer to building furniture. It simply never occurred to me that he might be building houses out of wood.
- edgarvaldes 7y ago
  > but it appears that most native speakers understood "carpenter" to mean "house builder". In Latin-America we use a very similar word: "carpintero" with the same origin. But the houses in the region are commonly made of concrete brick, so we don't associate "carpenter" with "house builder".
  - abecode 7y ago
    My brother is a carpenter and works with a lot of Latinos. He also does birdwatching as a hobby. Supposedly carpintero is also what they call woodpeckers.
    - cambalache 7y ago
      That's correct. But usually it's called "pajaro carpintero". Woody Woodpecker is called "El pajaro loco" though.
  - navaati 7y ago
    Well in French, "charpente" refers to the frame of the house, and the first thing you think about is a wooden frame, though in modern times it could be steel. A stone house wouldn’t really have a "charpente" I guess. And oftentimes "charpente" specifically means the roof structure (which is the only frame left in modern brick or concrete houses).
- A_Parr 7y ago
  The word carpenter originally referred to carriages or carts. They just happened to be made out of wood and the people who made them were apparently willing to apply those skills to more than wagons.
- gerdesj 7y ago
  Carpenter is a tricky term because wood is used in so many ways. This is strictly UK biased: In building terms we distinguish a first and second fix carpenter. First fix is mostly structural and second fix is the rest. If your hair is wet its probably first fix - roof trusses and the like. Second fix will include things like skirting boards. It's not a hard and fast rule and will probably involve the same people. These trades are known as "chippies" (sing. chippy). We also have cabinetry (your furniture smith - nice one) and other wood working trades. They are all called carpenters. A chippy is a carpenter and I think this a rare case where the nickname is more common than the real name. Civilians will often call a chippy a "builder". A cabinet maker is never known as a builder or a chippy. The chippy thing is because a very small piece of wood is a "chip". I think I know why you are a bit confused about the word carpenter. In the US and elsewhere, houses are mostly wooden. When a house is nearly all wood, then the word carpenter should mean builder. In the UK and elsewhere houses are built of sticks and bricks, mostly bricks.
  - wyclif 7y ago
    Americans often get confused when in the UK because "chippy" can mean either a carpenter or the fish and chips shop on the street.
    - gerdesj 7y ago
      To, not really, help counter that the shop is often called a "fish and chippery"!
      - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
        Depends where your are, chipper is common to some, others say 'fish shop', some 'chippy'. Other people say they're "getting chips", or "having carry-out" and leave the place to be entirely implicit. That said, I've never seen it called the "fish and chippery", but it wouldn't surprise me to see that used.
        soylentcola 7y ago
QuercusMax 7y ago
Fascinating! That could explain why he gave Simon the name "Peter" (Stone), and references like "The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone" (Matthew 21:42, quoting Psalm 118:22.)
- gerdesj 7y ago
  @BigOak. I think that Peter was a Rock and not just a stone - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter#%22Rock%22_dialogue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter#%22Rock%22_dialogu...
  - labster 7y ago
    That would explain his catchphrase: Can thou smell that which The Rock do cooketh?
- sigzero 7y ago
  Matthew 21:42 is talking about the Pharisees rejecting Christ.
- soylentcola 7y ago
  Simon was Pétros-fied!
infradig 7y ago
But tektōn means non-specically any craftsman or artisan, even a teacher or student.

ggm 7y ago

The article is correct in that Buddha being a prince is a myth. The use of the word myth in connection with religion always fascinates me. The entire concept of religion generally depends on myths. recursive use of myth in myth. Generally I have to read these sentences as in my opinion because the 'factual' quality of statements regarding the ur-myths of religion is usually not quantifiable, its all contextually defined by interpretation, semantics, ontology, eschatology, history, culture...

alexmingoia 7y ago
When I say myth, I mean in the sense that it’s not actually supported by the Tripitaka, which is the first complete written account of Buddha’s teachings by a lineage of his original monastic order (mostly confirmed by historical evidence where it exists) to survive as written to the present day, and considered canonical Buddhist teaching. It is most definitely quantifiable whether something is or is not written in the Tripitaka. That is why it remains important and historically significant.
- ggm 7y ago
  So its not supported by the canonical text makes it mythic. Ok, I get it now. Apocryphal.
  - sls 7y ago
    Do you think there's a difference between "Ashoka warred with Kalinga" (contemporary and/or near-contemporary evidence survives) and "Ashoka built 84,000 stupas" (for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that there is no historical evidence for this). Because that's the distinction being drawn above.
- jaldhar 7y ago
  One also has to bear in mind that the Tripitakha was compiled several centuries after the Buddha is said to have lived and has several divergent versions according to the ideological predilections of its editors. Also Pali was probably not the native language of the Buddha. The vernacular of the area where he lived and taught was call Magadhi. (The Jain Agamas are transmitted in a related language called Ardhamagadhi “half Magadhi”) Pali was prevalent in Avanti in West India (the geographical base of Sthaviravadins) not Magadha. The Sarvastivadins used Sanskrit, and Mahasanghikas used yet another language for their version. All of them claimed to have “The Original Teachings of the Buddha.” So I think attempts to find “fundamental” Buddhism are ultimately futile.

sombremesa 7y ago

Are you sure about this? "Bhavana" most certainly does not mean "a place" in modern parlance (see: "Rashtrapati Bhavan", which is the president's residence), and a lot of the other words have extant meanings in Hindi which differ significantly from what you've said here. Either Hindi has diverged a whole lot from Sanskrit and the meanings have changed (vimana literally means flying vehicle, and I'm pretty sure it's the same in Sanskrit), or you have some dubious sources.

tasogare 7y ago
> Either Hindi has diverged a whole lot from Sanskrit and the meaning have changed Yes it changed significantly. That’s why philology exists. And also why languages with long existence are classified in different strata.
- sombremesa 7y ago
  I doubt philology exists specifically because Hindi and Sanskrit diverged. Anyhow, have the meanings of extant words common to both languages significantly diverged? Do you have a source?
  - riskneutral 7y ago
    The practice of Buddhism has nothing to do with arguing on the Internet about the exact meanings of words in an ancient language that Gautama Buddha didn't even speak (we are told he spoke Magadhi Prakrit, not Sanskrit).
    - sombremesa 7y ago
      Look, this is a discussion forum. I was under the impression that we were having a good faith discussion and I'm genuinely curious about my question, whether extant words in Hindi and Sanskrit have significantly diverged in meaning. You can antagonize me if you like, but you can also choose not to participate in this specific thread if you don't have a meaningful contribution.
  - 7y ago

factorialboy 7y ago

Bhavana does mean a palace. Mandira and vimana do not mean palace. Nivasa means residence and does not indicate the nature of residence. I am appalled by this comment. These Sanskrit / Pali words you quoted, these are not obscure words. Infact they are used today in most of North India. Your translations and assertions are completely wrong. I would expect a higher level of scholarship before one makes such a matter of fact comment.

mantap 7y ago
Is it not possible for a word to change in meaning over time? For example "mansion" in English means a big and expensive house befitting nobility, but in the original Latin it just means a dwelling.
- sessy 7y ago
  Unlike English, the Sanskrit words do not change over time. Because in Sanskrit what you speak is what you write and what you write is what you speak.
  - jfoutz 7y ago
    > Sanskrit words do not change over time. That is amazing. I've only used english and a touch of spanish, and those words are so slippery. Even latin has a drift over time. i've poked at Aramaic, but never more than a week or two of half hearted effort. I'm really interested in Sanskrit now. Perhaps 5 years of concentrated effort to access thousands of years of writing sounds amazing. I have a hard time with Twain, much less Chaucer. English slips so much, so quickly. I suppose there really aren't puns or double entendres though. I can't imagine how semantics would survive the abuse of irony for thousands of years.
    - kranner 7y ago
      > > Sanskrit words do not change over time. > That is amazing. GP is simply incorrect here. Sanskrit dictionaries list multiple meanings per word sometimes with the period during which a meaning was prevalent. Puns and double entendres are particularly common in classical Sanskrit literature. http://murthygss.tripod.com/some_characteristics_of_sanskrit.htm#double%20entendre http://murthygss.tripod.com/some_characteristics_of_sanskrit...

collyw 7y ago

How are you sure that this particular version of history is correct and the far more popular version (where he is a prince) is wrong?