1

Johannes Bronkhorst johannes.bronkhorst@unil.ch

A note on śramaṇas and brāhmaṇas (to appear in: Festschrift in Honor of Boris Oguibénine, eds. Guillaume Ducoeur, Victoria Grace, and

Nataliya Yanchevskaya. Cambridge, MA: Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University)

Aśoka’s thirteenth Rock Edict states that “there is no country where these (two) classes

(nikāya), (viz.) the Brahmins and the Śramaṇas, do not exist, except among the Greeks

(yona)”.1 Can we conclude from this that there were Brahmins as well as Śramaṇas in all

“countries”, i.e., presumably, in all parts of Aśoka’s empire?

Such a conclusion may not be justified. It appears that the expression “Brahmins

and Śramaṇas”, or “Śramaṇas and Brahmins”, was used as a single expression that

referred to all those who were either Brahmins or Śramaṇas. In concrete terms, this

would mean that Aśoka’s statement does imply that there were either Brahmins or

Śramaṇas in all parts of his empire, but not necessarily both at the same time.

Conceivably there were “countries” with Brahmins but without Śramaṇas, and others

with Śramaṇas but without Brahmins. Clearly, Aśoka’s testimony must be dealt with with

much care.

What reason is there to look upon the expression “Brahmins and Śramaṇas” in this

manner? Note to begin with that Aśoka’s inscriptions often refer to Brahmins and

Śramaṇas together, but never to Śramaṇas separately, and only occasionally to

Brahmins.2

Then there is the observation by the grammarian Patañjali (ca. 150 BCE) to the

extent that the two terms form a singular neuter compound śramaṇabrāhmaṇam,

presumably because they are in constant opposition to each other.3 For our present

purposes the crucial fact is that, also in Patañjali’s time and culture, Brahmins and

1 In the Kalsi version: natthi cā ṣe janapade yattā natthi ime nikāyā āna(ṃ)tā yoneṣu baṃhane cā samaṇe cā (Bloch, 1950: 128). Tr. Hultzsch, 1925: 47, modified; cp. Schneider, 1978: 73. 2 Brahmins on their own are mentioned in Rock Edict 5 (Bloch, 1950: 104) and in an isolated Minor Rock Edict in Eṛṛaguḍi (Bloch, 1950: 151). 3 Mahā-bh I p. 476 l. 9 (under P. 2.4.12 vt. 2): yeṣāṃ ca virodha ity asyāvakāśaḥ / śramaṇabrāhmaṇam /; l. 11-12: cakārakaraṇasya prayojanaṃ yeṣām ca virodhaḥ śāśvatikas teṣāṃ dvandva ekavacanam eva yathā syāt.

2

Śramaṇas were apparently frequently referred to together, so much so that this specific

compound had come into existence.

This same compound, but not this time in the singular neuter but rather in the

plural masculine (samaṇabrāhmaṇā), is frequent in the Pāli canon. This confirms once

again that the two, Śramaṇas and Brahmins, were often thought of together, as together

constituting one group. Here, as in the case of the inscriptions of Aśoka, the question

comes up: do references in the Pāli canon to “Śramaṇas and Brahmins” necessarily

concern collections of individuals among which there are at least some Śramaṇas and

some Brahmins? At least one passage in the Pāli canon shows that they do not.

This passage occurs in the Devadaha Sutta of the Majjhima Nikāya. Here the

Buddha is presented as attributing to “some Śramaṇas and Brahmins” a position which no

Brahmin at the time is likely to have held, but which the passage itself attributes to

Jainas. Jaina ascetics certainly were Śramaṇas, they were not Brahmins. The passage

reads as follows:4

Santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā evaṃ-vādino evaṃ-diṭṭhino: yaṃ kiñcāyaṃ purisapuggalo paṭisaṃvedeti, sukhaṃ vā dukkhaṃ vā adukkhamasukhaṃ vā, sabban taṃ pubbekatahetu; iti purāṇānaṃ kammānaṃ tapasā vyantībhāvā, navānaṃ kammānaṃ akaraṇā āyatiṃ anavassavo, āyatiṃ anavassavā kammakkhayo, kammakkhayā dukkhakkhayo, dukkhakkhayā vedanākkhayo, vedanākkhayā sabbaṃ dukkhaṃ nijjiṇṇaṃ bhavissatī'ti. Evaṃvādino, bhikkhave, Nigaṇṭhā. Bhikkhus, there are some Śramaṇas and Brahmins (samaṇabrāhmaṇā) who hold such a doctrine and view as this: “Whatever this person feels, whether pleasure or pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by what was done in the past. So by annihilating with asceticism past actions and by doing no fresh actions, there will be no consequence in the future. With no consequence in the future, there is the destruction of action. With the destruction of action, there is the destruction of suffering. With the destruction of suffering, there is the destruction of feeling. With the destruction of feeling, all suffering will be exhausted.” So speak the Nigaṇṭhas, bhikkhus.

The “Śramaṇas and Brahmins” referred to in this passage are, as is clear from the passage

itself, Jainas.

4 MN II p. 214. Tr. Ñāṇamoli & Bodhi, 1995: 827, modified.

3

Another interesting passage is the question addressed by the wanderer

(paribbājaka) Subhadda to the dying Buddha, which has the following shape:5

ye 'me bho Gotama samaṇabrāhmaṇā saṃghino gaṇino gaṇācariyā ñātā yasassino titthakarā sādhusammatā ca bahujanassa, seyyathīdaṃ Pūraṇo Kassapo, Makkhali Gosālo, Ajita-Kesakambalī, Pakudho Kaccāyano, Sañjayo Belaṭṭha-putto, Nigaṇṭho Nāthaputto, sabbe te sakāya paṭiññāya abbhaññaṃsu, sabbe ‘va na abbhaññaṃsu, ekacce abbhaññaṃsu ekacce na abbhaññaṃsūti? Venerable Gotama, all those Śramaṇas and Brahmins (samaṇabrāhmaṇā) who have orders and followings, who are teachers, well-known and famous as founders of schools, and popularly regarded as saints, like Pūraṇa Kassapa, Makkhali Gosāla, Ajita Kesakambalī, Pakudha Kaccāyana, Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta and the Nigaṇṭha Nāthaputta — have they all realised the truth as they all make out, or have none of them realised it, or have some realised it and some not?

The names enumerated are those of the six heretics frequently mentioned in the Pāli

canon, prominently so in the Sāmaññaphala Sutta of the Dīgha Nikāya (DN I p. 47 ff.).6

Sāmañña means Śramaṇaship, so that it is clear that the teachers figuring in it are

Śramaṇas. In other words, there are no Brahmins among the “Śramaṇas and Brahmins”

of this passage.

The beginning of the Sāmaññaphala Sutta is interesting in the present context.

King Ajātaśatru is here presented as expressing the wish to visit a Śramaṇa or a

Brahmin.7 Only Śramaṇas figure in the remainder of the Sutta.

A systematic search may bring to light further passages that show that “Śramaṇas

and Brahmins” was used as a fixed expression and did not in each and every case have to

refer to both Śramaṇas and Brahmins; such an exhaustive search is beyond the scope of

this note. Of the three passages from the Pāli canon considered, the first one is crucial in

the present context, because it ascribes to “Śramaṇas and Brahmins” a position which, to

the best of our knowledge, no Brahmin held at that time.

So what can we conclude from the Aśokan inscription with which we started? We cannot

conclude from it that there were both Brahmins and Śramaṇas in all parts of the Maurya 5 DN II p. 150-51. Tr. Walshe, 1987: 268, modified. 6 See, e.g., Basham, 1951: 10 ff. 7 DN I p. 47: Kaṃ nu kh’ajja samaṇaṃ vā brāhmaṇaṃ vā payirupāseyyāma, yaṃ no payirupāsato cittaṃ pasīdeyyāti. “Can we not today visit some Śramaṇa or Brahmin, to visit whom would bring peace to our heart?” tr. Walshe, 1987: 91, modified.

4

empire. This is interesting, because it implies that we cannot conclude from this

inscription that there were Brahmins in all parts of the Maurya empire. Indeed, there are

good reasons to think that Brahmins did not reach certain parts of this area until late,

often later than the arrival of Buddhism and/or Jainism. The Aśokan inscription could in

this respect be a source of confusion. We now know that it should not be.

The inscription further state that there were neither Śramaṇas nor Brahmins

among the Greeks at the time of Aśoka. We may assume that the Greek parts of the

Maurya empire were meant. Aśokan inscriptions in Greek have been found in Kandahar.8

One wonders whether Gandhāra (or “Greater Gandhāra”) was considered Greek by

Aśoka. The absence of Brahmins in the region is no surprise: brahmanical influence there

remained feeble for a long time.9 We know that Buddhism reached this region early,

perhaps already under Aśoka. Aśoka’s inscription forces us to choose between three

options: (i) Aśoka (or his scribe) did not know that Buddhism had reached Gandhāra; (ii)

Buddhism had not yet reached Gandhāra at that time; (iii) Aśoka did not think of

Gandhāra as being inhabited by “Greeks” (yona). Since the fifth Rock Edict distinguishes

between Greeks, Kambojas and inhabitants of Gandhāra, option (iii) seems most

appropriate.

References:

Basham, A. L. (1951): History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas. A vanished Indian religion.

Reprint: Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi etc., 1981. Bloch, Jules (1950): Les inscriptions d’Asoka. Traduites et commentées. Paris: Les Belles

Lettres. Bronkhorst, Johannes (2011): Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism. Leiden - Boston:

Brill. (Handbook of Oriental Studies, 2/24.) Falk, Harry (2006): Aśokan Sites and Artefacts. A source-book with bibliography. Mainz

am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. (Monographien zur indischen Archäologie, 18.) Hultzsch, E. (1925): Inscriptions of Asoka. New edition. (Corpus Inscriptionum

Indicarum, 1.) Reprint: Indological Book House, Delhi – Varanasi, 1969. Ñāṇamoli, Bhikkhu & Bodhi, Bhikkhu (1995): The Middle Length Discourses of the

Buddha. A new translation of the Majjhima Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom Publications. Rhys Davids, T. W. and C. A. F. (1920): Dialogues of the Buddha. Translated from the

Pali of the Dīgha Nikāya. Part II. London: The Pali Text Society. 1977. Schneider, Ulrich (1978): Die grossen Felsen-Edikte Aśokas. Kritische Ausgabe, 8 Falk, 2006: 242 ff. 9 Bronkhorst, 2011: chapter III.7.

5

Übersetzung und Analyse der Texte. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. (Freiburger Beiträge zur Indologie, 11.)

Walshe, Maurice (1987): The Long Discourses of the Buddha. A translation of the Dīgha Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom Publications. 1995.

Abbreviations: DN Dīghanikāya, ed. T.W. Rhys Davids, J.E. Carpenter, 3 vols. 1890-1911

(PTS) Mahā-bh Patañjali, (Vyākaraṇa-)Mahābhāṣya, ed. F. Kielhorn, Bombay 1880-1885 MN Majjhima-Nikāya, ed. V. Trenckner, R. Chalmers, 3 vols., London 1888-

1899 (PTS) PTS Pali Text Society, London