Did the Buddha Teach to Be Called ‘Buddha’?―Focusing on the Meaning of Brāhmaṇa and How Buddhist Authors (re)Formulated His Words to Praise Him―

Abstract

The attainment of enlightenment by Gautama Buddha is the very beginning of Buddhism as a religious phenomenon. Because of his attainment of enlightenment, he has been remembered as Buddha for centuries, even though it is uncertain whether buddha was the preferred title to remember him by from the earliest times. Previous scholarship has demonstrated that the term buddha was a common noun in the Indian religious context, and it was also employed to refer to his higher disciples. The verses of the Suttanipāta represent a complex corpus rich in many fundamental concepts common to Jain religious thought. Many epithets were introduced by Buddhists to praise their monastic founder as Jains do. Among them, buddha does not seem to be the preferred one among them. Contrarily, by redefining brāhmaṇa, Buddhists participate in the ascetic discourse of praising their master as the one who deserves to be regarded as that ideal. This paper argues that Buddhists advocated their master as a brāhmaṇa, a title that is not only consistent with the teachings of Jains but also one that may have preceded the popularity of Buddha as his most memorable title.

1. Introduction

For centuries, Buddhists have accepted without question that the founder of their doctrine was always known as the Buddha. However, it is not that evident whether the Buddha was referred to as ‘buddha’ or whether he used that term to teach the path to enlightenment. These assumptions were probably too basic to be considered in previous studies. However, the issue of why Buddhist followers did not preserve such an important term in certain passages where brāhmaṇa is described as the ascetic ideal requires further scholarly attention. The similarities1 between early Jain scriptures and Dhammapada (Dhp) and Sutta-nipāta (Sn) have been noted by previous scholars (Watanabe 2006, 2015). As in the Sn and the Dhp, a similar formulation for redefining a ‘true Brahmin’2 appears in the Jain text of Uttarajjhāyā (Utt) as ‘him we call a Brahmin’ (taṃ vayaṃ būma māhaṇaṃ3) (Utt XXV.20–29). This parallelism has been mentioned before (Flügel and Qvarnström 2015, p. 12; McGovern 2019, p. 210; Norman and Yamazaki 2000, p. 31). However, previous scholarship did not analyze these allusions in detail4. Therefore, in this study5, we will examine the references to brāhmaṇa6 in the Sn and explore the similarities7 of its definitions with Jain thought8 of the Utt. First, we will reconsider the term ‘buddha’ to refer to the founder of Buddhism.

2. The Religious Context Around the Term ‘Buddha’

The term buddha was commonly accepted in ancient India, not just within Buddhism9, to refer to those who had attained liberation from rebirth. From the time of the Early Upaniṣads10, the epiphany of awakening was described as ‘awakening from dreaming’. In BĀU IV 4.13, the term pratibuddha11 is introduced in a similar manner to point to an individual who has attained a state of awakening. There is a consensus among scholars that the term ‘buddha’ was not exclusive to Buddhism. Indeed, it was also common among Jains and Vedic Brahmins to describe someone who had realized the ultimate truth. Thus, we can assume that the term buddha was not exclusive to Buddhism since it was widely used among the followers of other religious movements in ancient India. Hence, it is conceivable as a historical fact that ‘buddha’ was a common adjective in the philosophical and religious context of ancient India even before the Buddha’s time. It is noteworthy, however, that the Aṭṭhakavagga12 (Av) (considered one important part of the oldest strata13 of Buddhist scriptures14) uses only one instance (Sn 957) of this term to refer to the Buddha.

‘To the Buddha, unattached, impartial, not a schemer, one who has come as leader of a group, I have come in need with a question on behalf of the many here who are bound’ (Bodhi 2017, p. 369) Tam Buddhaṃ asitaṃ tādiṃ akuhaṅ gaṇim āgataṃ bahunnam idha baddhānaṃ atthi pañhena āgamiṃ.

(Sn 957)

There is no indication that the Buddha himself coined this term in the passage. There is no further evidence in the Av that the founder of Buddhism was addressed or referred to by this title. It is important to note that this term is used to commend him in these verses and their exegetical explanation15. The term buddha16 is used in several compounds of the Sn as a common noun to refer to his disciples, too17, and in several other passages where buddha is introduced to describe them in the plural18. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that, at his time, he was regarded exclusively as the Buddha. In this regard, I believe that this passage (Sn 957) must have been added later, after buddha became recognizable as his most iconic title. I follow the evidence found by Namikawa (2006), which is convincing enough to consider it to be historical. If there is still a skeptical reader who does not agree with my point, he/she should try to explain how, in the context of Gautama’s time (when his disciples were also called by the term buddha and many other former Buddhas were known), one could have determined who the individual referred to in the singular as Buddha in Sn 957 is. It is commonly believed that at a certain point, after the spread of Buddhism, the Buddha began to be referred to by his family name19, as Gotama Buddha (Yamazaki 2010, p. 109). However, despite his frequent identification in many dialogues as ‘samaṇa Gotama’ or being called by his contemporaries as ‘bho Gotama’20 and by his followers as ‘bhavaṁ Gotama’21, references to him by his family name as Gotama Buddha surprisingly are sparse in the Canon22. This absence can be attributed to the success of the campaign to remember him solely as the Buddha. After his lifetime, his popularity made it possible to refer to him simply as Buddha, which became his most iconic title. However, it is difficult to assert that buddha was the most used term to refer to him in early Buddhist scriptures, even if we disregard the possibility of the KN antiquity23 Given that in other supposedly later chapters of the Sn there are verses which recall how Buddhists explained what was meant by ‘Buddha’ in other religions (Sn 517), we must consider that for a certain period this term seems to have been subject to interpretation and clarification within the Buddhist community, suggesting that it may not have been regarded as the most natural title for the Buddha from the earliest period. If not, and we assume that this is a reference to the historical Buddha, why did Buddhists use the expression ‘they call’ (āhu)? We can see here how many epithets were introduced by his followers with the aim of worshiping the Buddha from the religious context they knew. In fact, the common ascetic religious background is plausible in the use of the expression ‘they say’ (tam āhu)24. The interpretations of several key philosophical terms are explained using the passive verb form of pavuccati. These terms appear to be defined in this way from the accepted interpretations, probably among ascetic religious traditions (taṇhā Sn 436, bhīru Sn 437, buddho Sn 513, nāgo Sn 518, muni Sn 523), and the expression tādi pavuccate (samaṇo Sn 520, nāgo Sn 522, khettajino Sn 524, kusalo Sn 525, paṇḍito Sn 526, anuvidita Sn 530, dhīro Sn 531, ājāniyo Sn 532). The presence of the term ‘buddha’ (Sn 513) among the titles adopted by Buddhists, presumably from other ascetic traditions, is quite remarkable. Thise explanation of buddha must has preceded the nominalization of the term as the founder of Buddhism. In contrast, many passages of the Sn tend to refer to someone who has achieved the highest religious goal as a brāhmaṇa. The following section will examine the Av’s teachings on the definition of brāhmaṇa.

3. The Definitions of Brāhmaṇa in the Av

Historical evidence suggests that during the time of the Buddha, the region designated as Greater Magadha (Bronkhorst 2007) was not under Brahminical dominion25. The classical dichotomy26 between Brahmanism and Buddhism did not exist at the time of the Buddha (McGovern 2019, pp. 69–70; Walser 2018). During his lifetime, the Buddha had interactions with many Brahmins, as evidenced by the numerous dialogues recorded in the Pāli Canon. Their encounters with the Buddha are usually narrated as the turning point of their conversion to Buddhism. These passages depict a myriad of astonishingly heterogeneous thoughts because of these dialogues. The religious goal of Buddhism in the Av is presented by many terminologies27 related to Brahmanism28. It is worth noting, for example, that many verses in the Sn refer to the Buddha as a ‘Veda-master’ (vedagū)29 and as someone who is versed in the ‘end of the Vedas’ (vedantagū)30. The Av depicts the Buddhist religious ideal figure as a brāhmaṇa. In the Av31, the term is introduced to refer to (1) one who has virtuous conduct (sīla) (Sn 790, 803), (2) one who has overcome passion (raga) (Sn 795), (3) one who does not cling to any views (Sn 802, 907, 911) (Bodhi 2017, p. 50), and (4) one who does not deviate from the truth (sacca), a sage (muni)32 who stands on high ground (Sn 946) (Norman 2001, p. 123). The definition of the Buddhist religious ideal as brāhmaṇa in Sn 843 is presented as one who does not compare himself in any way (Sn 842).

That the Buddha taught differently according to the background of his listeners is an accepted theory of his ‘skill in means’33. It would not be inaccurate to suggest that this formula may have somehow begun in some of the Buddha’s sermons, as it was quite common for him to reinterpret many terms as metaphors34. In this sense, scholars have understood and translated this term as a metaphor to distinguish Buddhism from the Brahminical context35. However, there was no such antagonism36 between Buddhists and Brahmins in the Buddha’s time37. The Av uses the term brāhmaṇa, the honorific used by Jains and Buddhists in earlier traditions to refer to the founders of their monastic orders, as was the case with muni or bhikkhu (McGovern 2019, pp. 98, 171). Therefore, it is fair to say that these terms were not exclusive to the Buddha and that Jains and Buddhist thought were under constant mutual influence. The hagiographic image and discourse advocating his figure as the Buddha was probably one of the key factors contributing to the spread of his popularity as ‘the Buddha’.

The Buddhist tradition transmitted the definitions of brāhmaṇa in the Sn as the Buddha’s own words, although it is not difficult to observe that he is at the same time praised by many of his own alleged definitions. The Buddha did not place much value on distancing himself from his disciples. However, his followers used various portrayals and titles38 to elevate him and maintain their monastic existence. The figure of the Buddha was mythicized through many appellatives39. Buddhists honored him by constructing a plethora of rhetorical frameworks, in which the attribution of epithets40 was a crucial activity (Long and Sarao (2017, pp. 274–75). Among the various terms used to honor and praise him, brāhmaṇa was also used in early Jain scriptures to indicate their common concept as referent. McGovern (2019) suggests that early Buddhists and Jains attempted to be perceived as the authentic Brahmins, for whom they reclaimed this concept as their religious (social) identity41. McGovern (2019, p. 219) presents a compelling analysis of the articulation of Brahminhood among Indian religions and points out how Buddhists and Jains reinvent the meaning of this key term from the Brahminical context (Ibid., p. 52). However, while I do not disagree with the arguments he presents, I suggest in this paper that the Utt and Sn traditions not only reveal the efforts and sophistication of Jains and Buddhists in legitimizing their religious identity as Brahmins but also that the advocacy of the title brāhmaṇa by Buddhists could have preceded the nominalization of Buddha as a proper name to refer to Gautama.

4. The ‘True Brahmin’ for Jains

This section will discuss the terminology and concepts42 of Uttarajjhāyā sūtra (Utt)43, focusing on the definitions of a ‘true Brahmin’ in the twenty-fifth chapter of the Utt, which have a remarkable amount of thought in common with the Sn.

The chapter on sacrifice (Jannaijja) (Utt XXV) explains the meeting of two men referred to as Brahmins: Jayaghoṣa, born into a Brahmin family, who was famous for performing the Vedic sacrificial ritual known as yama, and Vijayaghoṣa, a Brāhmaṇa who was versed in the Vedas. Vijayaghoṣa refused to give alms to Jayaghoṣa (Utt XXV.8). He calls Jayaghoṣa a beggar (bho bhikkhū) (Utt XXV.8). Moreover, the author of the Utt praises this Brahmin wanderer, Jayaghoṣa, as a great sage who ‘walk the right path’, clearly an allusion to the practice of Jainism (maggagāmī mahāmuṇī Utt XXV.2). His refusal to provide alms led to a dialectical confrontation between them that attracted the interest of the people around them. The Utt relate that people gathered around them and asked Jayaghoṣa to teach them the best of the Dharmas (būhi dhammāṇa vā muhaṃ) (Utt XXV.14). Then, the discussion of who was a ‘true Brahmin’ from the Jains perspective, began. As noted in Kawasaki and Fujinaga (2022, p. 8), Jains claim this concept to praise the founder of Jainism, Mahāvīra (kāsavo), their ideal Brahmin: ‘the most sacred figure for them above all dharmas’ (dhammāṇa kāsavo muhaṃ Utt XXV.16)44. The discursive voice differs from the formula in the Sn only in that Jains defined their interpretation of a true Brahmin using the plural of the first person45.

The arguments expounded began with the statement that one can have excellent Brāhmanical knowledge (vijjāmāhaṇa), but without reflection and penance (gūḍhā sajjhāyatavasā), they are like fire covered with ashes (bhāsacchannā ivaggiṇo) (Utt XXV.18)46. The next statement claims that a true Brahim is one who acts according to the ethical values of the Dharma47.

‘The one who is revered in the world, like fire, as Brahmin (bambhaṇo)48, that one will I now describe, the one whom the wise value, we call him a [a true] Brahmin (māhaṇa)’.

jo loe bambhaṇo vutto | aggīva mahio jahā/sayā kusalasaṃdiṭhaṃ | taṃ vayaṃ būma māhaṇaṃ.

(Utt XXV.19)

After this explanation, it is stated that according to Jainism, a genuine Brahmin is someone who, after leaving behind their previous life, roams without any remorse or attachment (Utt XXV.20), teachings that remind the verses of Sn 631 and 639. In Utt XXV.21, it is asserted that ‘being purified (as gold is by fire)’ (niddhanta) from attachment (rāga), anger (dosa), and fear is of great importance. This assertion bears a resemblance to the teachings found in Sn 631, which use the very same terms rāga and dosa, and verses that advise against acting upon sensual pleasures (kāmābha) (Sn 639) or the existence of desire (taṇhābhava) (Sn 640). Furthermore, Jains designate an ascetic who has achieved mastery of austerities, has become emaciated with bones and flesh, and has attained nirvāṇa (nivvāṇa) as a true Brahmin (Utt XXV.22). The term kisa (in Sanskrit kṛśa), used to describe such an ascetic in the Utt, can also be found in Sn 165 and Dhp 395, where the Buddhist discursive intention to praise the Buddha is evident. The similar expressions here refer to the sage (muni) Gotama (Sn 165) as the most sacred figure, the representative religious ideal for Buddhists, who for them deserved to be regarded as a true Brahmin (brāhmaṇa) (Dhp 395). Furthermore, the past participle form (patta) of the verb pāpuṇāti provides additional evidence that the individuals responsible for preserving Buddhist verses also structured their ideal of a ‘true Brahmin’ similarly to the Jains (pattanivvāṇaṃ Utt XXV.22). It is apparently implausible that the ideal figure of a ‘true Brahmin’ for Buddhists was anything other than the Buddha himself. This can be seen in other passages of early Buddhist scriptures, which provide evidence that Buddhists worshiped the Buddha in the same sense that Jains did construct their concept of the ideal Brahmin, for example, in the description of one who has attained the destruction of birth (jātikkhayaṃ patto)49 serves to define the Buddhist ideal of brāhmaṇa (Sn 647, Dhp 423).

The notion outlined in (Utt XXV.23) of one who does not harm any kind of creature in the three ways (by thoughts, words, and actions) (jo na hiṃsai tiviheṇa) as a defining characteristic of what Jains regarded as a true Brahmin is consistent with the teachings of (Sn 629–632)50. Buddhists express their interpretation of their ideal through the term brāhmaṇa, and noble (ariya) to one who practices the principle of non-violence (ahiṃsā) toward any living being (sabbapāṇānaṃ) (Dhp 270). In addition, following this argument logically, those who cause harm to living beings (pāṇāṇi hiṃsati) were regarded, again metaphorically, as the true underclass (vasalo) (Sn 117). The ascetic traditions based on mutual ethical values retold the social stigma established by Vedic Brahmins. The next section (Utt XXV.24) admonishes not to speak untruth (musa) about any matter, of which anger (kohā)51 is clearly the aspect most often mentioned by Buddhists52, who also state that one who speaks untruth or behaves with anger (Sn 116), whatever the reason, should also be considered an outcast (vasalo) (Sn 122)53. In contrast, the reference icon for Buddhists was, of course, the Buddha himself. In the Sn 650, the very same message that a true sage (muni) is unafraid without anger (Sn 850, 941) are words used to define the supreme person, as the narratives explain, as the definitions of the Buddha54. Here, we can see that Buddhists, as in the Jain context, sought to praise the Buddha by reformulating terms as his own words. The presentation of their teachings, with the intention of lauding their religious prototype, the founder of their religious traditions, by redefining who a true Brahmin really was, had more resonance.

Again, the Jains’ and Buddhists’ definition of a ‘true Brahmin’ is based on not taking anything that is not directly given to be received (adatta Utt XXV.25; adinna Sn 633). The following depiction of a genuine Brahmin is one of the essential vows of Jain ascetics, which requires complete abstinence from carnal contact (mehuṇaṃ) (Utt XXV.26)55. As noted by previous scholars, the classic metaphor of ‘not being attached by water’ (novalippai vāriṇā) (Utt XXV.27) defines a true noble one as someone who is not attached to sensual pleasures. This metaphor not only refers to the ideal ascetic, who is again defined as a Brahmin by Jains56, but to what is implied by the ideal brāhmaṇa among Buddhists. Buddhists defined a genuine Brahmin as one who has conquered their desires (taṇha) and destroyed their desirous existence (taṇhābhavaparikkhīṇaṃ) (Sn 640). This concept is in line with Jain texts that also recognize the subjugation of desire, coupled with the three toxins of attachment (rāga), anger (dosa), and delusion, as the primary reasons for misery resulting in (re)birth and death (Utt XXII.6–9). The affinities between these verses of the Sn and the Utt can also be seen in the recommendation to free oneself from all kinds of bondage (sabbayogavisaṃyuttaṃ) (Sn 641)57.

Needless to say, renunciation of sensual pleasures (kāme pahatvāna) and wondering homelessly (anāgāra) (Sn 639) were fundamental aspects held by both Jains and Buddhists. Remarkably, in Jainism, the avoidance of sensual pleasures (pahāya kāme) is also a prerequisite for spiritual attainment (Utt IV.10). Renunciation of domestic life (aṇagāra) and all pleasure (bhoga) is also found in the Jain version of the redefinition of a true Brahmin (māhaṇa) (Utt XXV.28)58, which is not linked to Vedic rituals, such as animal sacrifice, aspects of the Vedic traditions that are clearly discouraged (Utt XXV.30).

‘One who lives undisturbed by longing or desire, without attachment, without house, without possessions, and free from clinging among householders, we call him a great Brahmin’ aloluyaṃ muhājīviṃ | aṇagāraṃ akiṃcanaṃ/asaṃsattaṃ gihatthesu | taṃ vayaṃ būma māhaṇaṃ.

(Utt XXV.28)

As we can see, their definition of someone authentically y holy is determined by the ethics shared between these ascetic traditions. Precisely after the passages in Utt XXV.20–29, when it was defined what Jains meant to be an authentic Brahmin, in Utt XXV.30–3359, we can notice the cultural substrate60 of Greater Magadha (Bronkhorst 2007) under the importance of karma instead of birth, as the central point definer of one’s social status. The basic pragmatic view of the ascetic traditions is stated in the thirty-third verse of Utt XXV.

‘It is through one’s karma that one becomes a brāhmaṇa. It is through one’s karma that one becomes a kṣatriya. It is through one’s karma that one becomes a vaiśya. It is through one’s karma that one becomes a śudra’ kammuṇā bambhaṇo hoi | kammuṇā hoi khattio/vaiso kammuṇā hoi | suddo havai kammuṇā.

(Utt XXV.33)

These lines leave us the message implicit in Dhp 393, Sn 136, 142, 650 when the image of Vedic Brahmins is used to state that depending on his karma, anyone, even Brahmins, can be impure61. Based on the teachings of the Buddha62, who completely rejected any type of discrimination (probably since it was not precisely uncommon at his time too), in other passages, the definition of brāhmaṇa is consistently redefined as someone who tries to uphold Buddhist morality (Sn 136, 142, 650). The verses of Sn 649–650 explain how Buddhists emphasize high morality, that is, good kamma (Sn 625, Dhp 401) (Yamazaki 2010, pp. 68–69), in order to be considered a ‘true Brahmin’, as opposed to someone who is only noble by birth63.

Jains recall that these pragmatic teachings were taught by the ‘Buddha’, here, a term used to honor, presumably, their mentor: Mahāvīra (Utt XXV.34). In the same line of this Jain text, he was treated as the authentic iconic figure, which for them was the representation of whom they defined as a true Brahmin. Their religious ideal was defined by pointing to one who has practiced the ‘true bath ritual’ (siṇāya), another metaphor for one who has purified all his karma. This argument, along with the teaching of one who has completed his training and purified himself through the ‘bath’ (nahātaka) of action, can also be seen in Sn 646. Here, brāhmaṇa was equivalent to buddha and was also described within the concept of hero (vīraṃ). The definitions of brāhmaṇa in Sn 642 and Sn 646 are in clear agreement with the Jain views, which define them as those who have conquered all kinds of bondage (sāvajjajoga) (Utt IXXX.200.13). Finally, the colophon of this dialectical encounter ends with the conclusion of his reference to Jayaghoṣa as a higher mendicant (bhikkhu uttamā) (Utt XXV.39), the knower of the authentic knowledge, the true ‘Veda’ (veyaviūviū) of the ascetic traditions: the Dhamma (Utt XXV.38), as a connection with the Truth, which is a discursive source for them to extol the teachings of the supreme Brahmin, the founder of Jainism: Mahāvīra. The dialogue is used, as Buddhists did, to laud his teachings as (in harmony with) the Dharmaand to portray the necessity of abandoning worldly life and becoming a homeless beggar (aṇagārassa nikkhanto), refusing all enjoyment (bhogesu) in order to transcend the saṃsāra (Utt XXV.41, 44)64.

In the Utt, the redefinition of their term for Brahmin (māhaṇa) is used to glorify their master, Mahāvīra, as the ‘true Brahmin’. Various concepts and terms in this text coincide with the interpretation of Buddhists in the Sn. The Buddha’s encounter with Sundarika, from the Bhāradvājas family of Brahmins, is a clear example of a redefinition of who deserves to be worshiped as the ideal brāhmaṇa (Sn 463–466). Subsequent passages discuss that the ‘Tathāgata’ is ‘worthy of the sacrificial cake’ (Bodhi 2017, p. 270) (Sn 467–478), embodying the concern of Buddhist authors for the continuation of the saṅgha. In Sn 469, the term brāhmaṇa is used as an equivalent for Tathāgata, which supports my thesis that Buddhists introduced this term to praise the Buddha, not just as an abstract ideal, since for them, the ideal figure was always represented by the Buddha. Many verses in the Canon demonstrate this initiative with the refrain ‘I call him a Brahmin’ (tam ahaṃ brūmi brāhmaṇaṃ)65, composed in the singular in the first person to appear as direct words of the Buddha66.

5. The Buddhists’ Claim of Brāhmaṇa

Outside of the Av, the formula already mentioned is introduced after explaining who is not a Brahmin (na brāhmaṇo)67 (Sn 611–619)68. The allusions to this formula in the Sn are very diverse. However, it seems to be fair to say that most of them are related to the ideal characteristics that defined it, in the Utt, which seem to be teachings shared by ascetic religious traditions. The passages of the Sn ascribe to one what the Buddha defined as a brāhmaṇa, which refers to the ascetic austerity of not possessing anything (ākiñcañña) (Sn 620, Dhp 396, 421). This practice of possessing nothing, common to both Jains and Buddhists69, is referred to in many verses of the Sn (Sn 976, 1070–1072, 1091) and Dhp (Dhp 88, 200, 221). Moreover, it is associated with the idyllic image of a ‘true Brahmin’ (Sn 1115) compared to the ‘island of nirvana’ (Sn 1094). Furthermore, the lines of Sn 1063 show how this concept is used in conjunction to praise the Buddha as the ‘(true) Brahmin who possesses nothing’ (akiñcanaṃ brāhmaṇaṃ)70. Moreover, the emphasis on defining their religious ideal as the ‘true Brahmin’ without possessions (akiñcana) (Sn 645), along with being homeless, is also explained by Jains aṇagāraṃ akiṃcaṇaṃ (Utt II.14), to propagate the ascetic antithesis by referring to as ‘brahmin’ those whom they consider deserving, being regarded as holy.

The following lines in the Sn describe to brāhmaṇa someone who is free from detachment (Sn 621, 626), who reacts with patience as their virtue (Sn 623), one who acts without anger (kodha) (Sn 624), and one who does not cling to sensual pleasures (Sn 624). Jains and Buddhists used the very same concepts and wording. In the same manner, for Buddhists, brāhmaṇa was employed for referring to one who has reached the supreme goal (Sn 627)71, who wanders and who has renounced his home (Sn 628)72; someone who does not kill (hanti) or provoke to kill (ghāteti) with special stress on remaining away from punishing others (nidhāya daṇḍaṃ) (Sn 629)73 and hostility (viruddha) (Sn 630); one from whom lust (rāgo) and hatred (doso) have fallen (Sn 631)74; one who does not hurt anyone by using rough words (Sn 632)75. It is specified that a true Brahmin is one who does not accept anything not given (adinnaṃ) (Sn 633), highlighting the context of ethical or moral discussions in Buddhist teachings, where actions, thoughts, or qualities are categorized as either wholesome or unwholesome (subhāsubhaṃ) based on their ethical nature, which is a concept also discussed in Jainism76. The formula of who deserves to be regarded as a brāhmaṇa, an ascetic without desire (nirāsayaṃ) (Sn 634), was a common concern argued largely by Buddhists and Jains77. Also, the formula was introduced for pointing to one who has reached (anuppattaṃ) the highest gain (uttamatthaṃ)78 (Sn 635), ideas discussed with the very same terms by Jains. The next Buddhist definition of a ‘true Brahmin’ describes one immersed (ogadha) in deathlessness (amata) (Sn 635), in whom there are no attachments, who is pure (suddha)79 and free from defilement (viraja) (Sn 636). For someone who, like the moon (canda)80, is stainless (vimala)81, pure, clear, and limpid (Sn 637), and one who has crossed the sea of rebirth (tiṇṇo pāragato) (Sn 638)82. Buddhists consider the Buddha himself as their most iconic reference and, therefore, the true Brahmin. In Sn 643, the enlightened one (Buddha) is described as the ‘true Brahmin’ (brāhmaṇa). This description is consistent with the following Jain lines, which refer to the omniscience (savvannū) of the conquerors (jiṇe) who have already awakened (saṃbuddha).

‘Thus, an arahant [is known] by the name of ‘Supreme Conqueror’, a guide for the world, a supreme fully enlightened one, omniscient; the founder of Dhamma’

jiṇe pāsi tti nāmeṇa | arahā logapūio/saṃbuddhappā ya savvannū | dhammatitthayare jiṇe.

(Utt XXIII.1)

The passage of the Sn 644 explains brāhmaṇa in a very similar way, as someone who deserves donations (arahanta)83, one whose goal transcends the realms of gods, gandharvas, and men (devā gandhabbamānusā). This idea finds its antecedent in the Jain explanation that the glory (pāliyā) of the awakened (saṃbuddhā) prevails (mahajjuī) in the five (paṃca) directions (vayāiṃ) in a celestial body (caittu dehaṃ), free from (malapaṃka) impurities (puvvayaṃ), [whether] attained (siddhe) or yet to be attained (sāsae). The unpredictability of where Buddhas go is described with the same references to that place not belonging to any realm among gods (deva), gandharvas (gandhavva), or humans (maṇussa) (Utt I.46–48).

The actual form of the Pāli Canon that we know today is a network of several different teachings that have been rearranged over time. These texts collected many different views, including those regarding the Buddha’s Brahminical status. While the Buddha himself seems to have insisted that he was not born into a Brahmin family (Sn 455, 457), there are passages in which the Buddha is said to have considered himself a Brahmin (SN 10.8, AN 3.35 and AN 8.85), and also other texts in which he is called a Brahmin by others (SN 1.1, SN 2.18, SN 7.8, SN 7.9, Sn 2.12) (Ellis 2021, p. 43). In this regard, it is noteworthy that despite the scarce presence of the term buddha in the Av, many verses in the Sn equate the concept of an awakening one with the term brāhmaṇa, in the same manner as the Jains did to praise the founder of their religion.

6. Praising the Buddha as Brāhmaṇa

In the final verses of the Vāseṭṭha-sutta (Sn 655–656), the catechetical way of introducing the ethical Buddhist teachings to attain ‘supreme Brahminhood’ can be noted84. The commentary on the last verse of this chapter explains the gnostic statement presented in Sn 656, which cites the most popular Vedic gods. It is likely that Buddhist authors made these statements to legitimize the uniqueness that they wished to ascribe to the figure of the Buddha85. In fact, there are several passages in the third chapter of the Sn where brāhmaṇa is directly employed to express the singularity of the term buddha86, as the very definition, in the singular, which is also stated as his own words (Sn 622, 643, 646)87. These passages88, some of the counterpart verses of the Brāhmaṇavagga (Dhp 383–423)89, tend to directly express the goal of Buddhist practice with the title buddha90, lines that also included the classical formula of ahaṃ brūmi brāhmaṇaṃ. It is worth considering that these verses might be a previous step toward his mythification as the Buddha.

‘The one awakened, having cut off strap and thong, the cord together with the bridle, having lifted the crossbar: that one I proclaim a brahmin’ (Feldmeier 2013, p. 151) chetvā nandhiṃ varattañ ca sandānaṃ sahanukkamaṃ ukkhittapaḷighaṃ buddhaṃ tam ahaṃ brūmi brāhmaṇaṃ.

(Dhp 398/Sn 622)

‘The one who has realized the dissipation and arising of beings, who is unattached, well-gone, awakened: that one I proclaim a brahmin’ (Feldmeier 2013, p. 154) cutiṃ yo vedi sattānaṃ upapattiñ ca sabbaso, asattaṃ sugataṃ buddhaṃ tam ahaṃ brūmi brāhmaṇaṃ.

(Dhp 419/Sn 643)

‘The excellent one who is a bull, a hero, a great sage, a conqueror, free of craving, the one who has taken the (ritual) bath, who is now awake: that one I proclaim a brahmin’ (Feldmeier 2013, p. 169) usabhaṃ pavaraṃ vīraṃ mahesiṃ vijitāvinaṃ anejaṃ nhātakaṃ buddhaṃ tam ahaṃ brūmi brāhmaṇaṃ.

(Dhp 422/Sn 646)

In contrast with this usage, in other verses of the Sn, brāhmaṇa was associated with the term buddha, not as a common noun, but as the very significant title for their master. In the third chapter of the Sn, we find the first mention in the Sn of the Buddha affirming to a (Vedic) Brahmin (Sn 558) that he is the Buddha91. However, like many others, these lines do not seem to be a direct quotation from the Buddha himself since they are presented in an inspirational way to fascinate the audience. The similarity of these lines to the Brahmāyusutta (MN 91) is quite striking. The successive verses of MN 91 are parallel to those of Sn 647 (also found in SN 1.1-8-5) and Dhp 423.

Buddhists recall and praise their master as Jains by exploring the use of polyonymies. Exclusive titles were added later to distinguish the Buddha from his disciples92. However, as historically recorded in Buddhist traditions, among the many epithets shared by Buddhists and Jains, buddha was the one that later became the preferred one93 to refer specifically and properly to the founder of Buddhism (Long and Sarao (2017, pp. 273–74). The spread of Buddhist narratives succeeded in the mythification of the Buddha. Since he was considered to be unique, the term buddha has been used by Buddhist writers in reference to his uniqueness (Namikawa 2006, p. 51). It is certain that several accounts of the Sn indicate the necessity of presenting the term buddha as his most representative appellative, which seems to be part of the establishment of it as the most appropriate title to praise him.

‘You are the Buddha, you are the Teacher, you are the muni, the conqueror of Māra. Having cut off the latent tendencies, crossed over, you lead this population across’ (Bodhi 2017, p. 286–87) tuvaṃ Buddho94, tuvaṃ Satthā, tuvaṃ Mārābhibhū muni, tuvam anusaye chetvā tiṇṇo tāres’ imaṃ pajaṃ.

(Sn 545, 571, Th 839) (Namikawa 2017, p. 17)

‘For you know the course and destination of the world together with its devas. There is none equal to you, one who shows the subtle meaning, for they say you are the excellent Buddha’ (Bodhi 2017, p. 254) tuvaṃ hi lokassa sadevakassa gatiṃ pajānāsi parāyanañ ca: na t’ atthi tulyo nipuṇatthadassī, tuvaṃ hi Buddhaṃ pavaraṃ vadanti.

(Sn 377)

His image already flourished as the Buddha can be seen in many verses in the Sn95, probably of later occurrence. It is quite interesting to observe how Buddhist authors used many of these lines to inspire96 narratively their audience. The register of their descriptions was more inductive than epigraphic. The discursive intention to convince potential listeners of the Buddha’s ability to convert Brahmins is not contradictory to the possibility that Buddhist Brahmins provided the Vedic background terms. As a matter of fact, we know that many Brahmins were converted to Buddhism. A significant portion of the motifs we have in the Canon are the result of the Buddha’s reinterpretation of Vedic concepts (Bronkhorst 2012; Gombrich 2006, p. 42; 2018, pp. 60, 88, 193; Jurewicz 2000; Shults 2014), but also of the consensus among converted Brahmins (Bronkhorst 2011) to interpret his teachings in the light of Brahmanism97.

It is possible that some of the inconsistencies in the analyzed passages could be accidental. The Buddhists, on the other hand, needed to distinguish themselves from the Vedic and other religious groups who claimed to be Brahmins. However, as this work demonstrates, there is a consistent portrayal of brāhmaṇa for praising their religious ideal, the Buddha himself, within the frameworks and paradigms Jains used to praise their founder. If we consider that this was preserved in the Buddhist tradition of the Canon after many councils, and if we take seriously the number of paradigms from Brahminical thought that have been accepted by Buddhists for centuries as Buddhavacana, we are faced with a new problem: that the significance of the impact of Brahmanism on the transmission of Buddhism may date from earlier than we had expected.

7. Conclusions

Did the Buddha teach to be called buddha? He probably did not. The concept of awakening expressed by the term ‘buddha’ was quite common in his time. However, as this paper has shown, this designation was not always used as the most prestigious title for worshiping Śākyamuni. The scarce allusion to this term in the Av, and the prolific expansion of the claim to the ascetic ideal as brāhmaṇa referred to throughout the Sn, lead us to reconsider that the influence of Brahmanism in the transmission of Buddhism cannot be entirely attributed to later development. We have ample evidence of how Buddhist Brahmins interpreted the teachings of the Buddha upon Vedic and Upaniṣadic ideas, principally to praise the Buddha in a similar manner in the Nikāyas, as the(ir) true Brahmin: the very knower of Bráhman/Brahmā (Villamor 2024c). This suggests an earlier interaction between Buddhist and Brahminical traditions, which I believe must have resulted from the very contact of these ideas in the minds of converted Brahmins.

Jains and Buddhists shared many terms, including common doctrines and terms consistent with their ideal as expressed by their concept of brāhmaṇa, which they redefined in the singular. They did not worship the same figure or just a conceptualization of their religious practice. They worshiped their founders as true saints. Their catechetical references as brāhmaṇa, analyzed in this paper, show how they reinterpret the meaning of this Brahminical term for this purpose. Their use of this category to worship the remembered figure of their religious founders is consistent with the understanding of this term as a noble category, as affirmed by Vedic Brahmins. Nevertheless, their explorations have been introduced to accurately portray the uniqueness of their masters.

As analyzed in this article, the definitions of the archetype of brāhmaṇa in the Sn share key concepts and terminology with the Jain scripture of the Utt. This common understanding of the values they ascribed to praise their masters makes up the main body of the ethical structure between these ascetic traditions. On the other hand, the Jains and the Buddhists differed in their attribution of the definition of brāhmaṇa. The Buddhists attributed it to the Buddha’s own words, possibly because they believed it to be an infallible way to place their praise in the Buddha’s preferred mode of teaching. In terms of narrative, they made every effort to ensure that his myth was memorable. This effort led to centuries of recognition. The development of Buddhism, as reflected in the many layers that formed the preserved composition of the Canon, reveals a complex interaction with Brahminical motifs. If ‘brāhmaṇa’ emerged as a term to refer to the Buddha, then the conceptual associations must have been established by Brahminical followers. However, it is less clear when ‘buddha’ became the preferred title for praising him; it is likely that it was not from the beginning regarded as the most representative epithet for honoring his figure, and it is uncertain whether it preceded his association as the ideal ‘brāhmaṇa’.