The True ‘Brahmin Truth’ Taught by the Buddha: The Transmission of Brāhmaṇasacca and the Brahmanical Discourse of Buddhists

Abstract

This paper examines the compound brāhmaṇasacca in several Buddhist texts from the Pāli Canon, as well as in their Sanskrit and Chinese adaptations. This paper challenges previous analyses of this term, arguing that the Buddha may have reinterpreted its meaning as a metaphor. However, his followers, influenced by Brahminical orthodoxy, understood and transmitted it as a genitive tatpuruṣa: ‘the truth of the (authentic) Brahmin’—the Buddha. The philological analysis presented in this paper shows that the metaphor of the Buddha’s teachings as brāhmaṇasacca not only reflects his pragmatic approach to affirming the value of embracing the truth over identifying with a religious tradition, but also his followers’ desire to praise him as the supreme Brahmin. Commentators of the Canon described the Buddha as someone who had a complete understanding of ultimate reality (paramatthasacca). Consequently, he was considered the ultimate Brahmin authority, defined as omniscient, representing the ultimate truth for Brahmins. The Chinese versions of brāhmaṇasacca recall the Buddha’s teachings and present them as his Indian followers assumed them to be, as part of his realization of the ultimate truth, even when the cultural baggage of describing the Buddha as the supreme Brahmin decreased. This study reveals the intended meaning of the compound brāhmaṇasacca (AN ii 176) and how the Buddha’s metaphor was transmitted under the influence of Brahmanical religious culture over time.

1. Introduction: The Problem Around the Term Brāhmaṇasacca

The heterogeneity of the teachings in the Pāli Canon is undeniable. The Buddhist Canon contains many ideas influenced by the Brahmanical context, not to mention the Buddha’s numerous dialogues with Brahmins. The evolvement of Buddhism and its connection to Brahmanism were intricate issues (Bronkhorst 2011), in which mutual exchange and assimilation occurred more frequently than opposition between both religious movements1. Many parables and other metaphors introduced by the Buddha can be found in the Pāli Canon, as he introduced a wide range of allegories to reformulate the meaning of various popular paradigms (Gombrich 2006, pp. 21–26, 42). His teachings illustrate many of his reinterpretations of ideas from other religious contexts, of which Brahmanism was a constant source of reference (Gombrich 2013, pp. 73, 204; Norman 1992, 1997; Shults 2014). His followers were sometimes reluctant to spread his pragmatic and apophatic teachings, ostensibly because of their religious convictions. Their deepest beliefs and Brahminical backgrounds influenced their interpretations of some of the most iconic teachings in Buddhism (Villamor 2023a, 2023b, 2025a). McGovern (2018) discussed the emergence of religious identities in ancient India and claimed that Buddhism emerged from an intellectual and cultural background he recently termed the ‘Brahminical Avant-garde’ (McGovern 2022). I doubt that Brahminical religious culture was prominent in Magadha during the Buddha’s lifetime (Bronkhorst 2007). The Vinaya of the Pāli tradition portrays earlier negotiations and thus indicates less influence of Brahminical thought (Villamor 2026a). This does not reflect the same level of interest in, or development of, the assimilation of Brahminism as depicted in the suttas, in which his disciples glorified the Buddha as Brahmā (Villamor 2026b) because he was considered the ultimate leader and incarnation of the ultimate truth: Brahman (Villamor 2025b). Moreover, the idea of worshipping the Buddha in terms of the God-hero archetype among Aryans is part of the intellectual heritage of converted warriors and Brahmins, to praise the Buddha (Villamor 2025c). These tendencies have obscured the meaning of many of the paradigms and concepts referred to in the Buddhist Canon. Scholars need to be cautious about philological analysis, especially in Buddhist studies, as it is imperative to carefully examine the historical background of the Buddha’s teachings2 and the social context (Bronkhorst 2006) in which they were given3. Many of the Brahmins4 who converted to Buddhism5 could understand (Vedic) Sanskrit, as they had been educated in the Vedas6. Therefore, it is important to carefully examine and discuss this background, their religious mindset, as the underlying premise—especially when analyzing how they used language to remember the Buddha, which generally implied praising him. This study aims to reveal the inherent meaning of the compound brāhmaṇasacca (AN ii 176), and how it was transmitted in its parallel versions, focusing on the Sanskrit (SĀ (Hos 3. 6–8)) and Chinese sources, in the light of a deeper understanding of the influence of Brahmanical religious culture on the development of Buddhist thought.

2. The Teachings of Buddha and the Truths of the Vedic Brahmins

Scholars in the past have been aware of the mention of the compound of brāhmaṇasacca (Bingenheimer 2011, p. 292; Chodron 2001, p. 1363; Lamotte 1997, pp. 14–15), but the ambiguity of its interpretation, remain unresolved. The Brāhmaṇasaccasutta (AN ii 176–177) recalls an encounter of the Buddha with an assembly of [Vedic] Brahmins, referred as wanderers (paribbājakā) that included Annabhāra, Varadhara, Sakuludāyī, and others, in a monastery close to Sappinī river7. It is said that there was a discussion (kathā udapādi) among them—who are remembered as belonging to another religious tradition (aññatitthiyānaṃ paribbājakānaṃ)8—which seem to have talked about some statements that they consider to be ‘truths among Brahmins’ (‘This [is] a truth among Brahmins, this [is another] truth among Brahmins’ (iti pi brāhmaṇasaccāni iti pi brāhmaṇasaccānīti)). This text mentions that the Buddha taught the ‘four Brahmanical truths’ using the same expression (brāhmaṇasaccāni), which appears to be a redefinition, a metaphor based on his acknowledgement of what is ‘truth’ (sacca), and ‘sacred’ (brāhmaṇa).

There are four brāhmaṇasacca, wanderers, which I have explained after realizing them through my own direct knowledge.

Cattārimāni, paribbājakā, brāhmaṇasaccāni mayā sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā paveditāni.

(AN ii 176)

The terms brāhmaṇa9 and sacca10 are used extensively in the Canon11. However, their juxtaposition in one compound is unique in the entire Sutta Piṭaka, as it seems to occur only in this passage (AN ii 176). The Buddha’s teachings expressed here by this term, do not advocate the religious practices of Vedic Brahmins. Instead, they clearly contrast with the sacrificial practices of the Brahmins, emphasizing respect for all life and avoidance of sensual pleasures—teachings fundamental to ascetic traditions. The tenets in AN ii 176 can be seen as another one of his many reformulations, part of his common teaching method known as ‘Skill in Means’, in which he frequently employed the terminology of his interlocutors. The Buddha’s point here is evidently to redefine who should be regarded as a ‘Brahmin’. He tells the Vedic wanderers who have been reunited there that, ‘in this world, an [authentic] ‘Brahmin’ would speak exactly like this’ (Idha paribbājakā brāhmaṇo evam āha). This was not a religious label. Rather, it seems that this concept was used here to encourage living according to the precepts of ascetic religions. The four teachings given to the Vedic Brahmins are recorded as follows:

(1)

Respect all life (sabbe pāṇā avajjhā);

(2)

Avoidance of sensual pleasures, since they are all impermanent and thus cause of calamity (sabbe kāmā aniccā dukkhā);

(3)

Acceptance of the impermanence of all existence (sabbe bhavā aniccā);

(4)

Practice awareness of nothingness12.

These four teachings are substantiated by the following logical assertion: if one understands this teaching through direct knowledge, then one embarks upon the path to liberation (api ca yad eva tattha saccaṃ tad abhiññāya (…) paṭipanno hoti). This statement reflects the Buddha’s pragmatic orientation, suggesting that regardless of a person’s background, one who earnestly engages with these ethical principles is speaking the truth, and is, holy. I believe that these words are part of the Buddha’s direct thoughts, as he seems to redefine who behave correctly, in his pragmatic way, by referring to someone who abandons the religious identitarian categories of samaṇa and brāhmaṇa.

This is, [Vedic] wanderers, whom in this world I call [to be a true] ‘Brahmin’. When a Brahmin speaks in this way, he speaks truth, not falsehood. Thus, he does not misconceive himself to be an ‘ascetic’ or a ‘Brahmin’. He does not compare [himself thinking]: ‘I am better’ or ‘I am equal’ or ‘I am worse’.

Idha paribbājakā brāhmaṇo evam āha: sabbe pāṇā avajjhā ti, iti vadaṃ brāhmaṇo saccaṃ āha no musā. So tena na samaṇo ti maññati na brāhmaṇo ti maññati na seyyo ‘ham asmīti maññati na sadiso ‘ham asmīti maññati na hīno ‘ham asmīti maññati.

(AN ii 176–177)

This view clearly contradicts the significant identitarian claims of his followers, who identified with both categories simultaneously for a long time before the dichotomy among these labels, emerged13. The canonical commentators redefine brāhmaṇasacca as the truths revealed by Brahmins and to identify Buddhists by exalting their religious identity, as noticed by McGovern (2018) through both categories of samaṇa and Brahmin.

In the fifth [chapter], brāhmaṇasaccānī [are] the real (tatha) truths (sacca) of Brahmins. He (the Buddha), by that, says that one not identified himself as samaṇa. He who has extinguished defilements says: ‘I am a samaṇa’. By saying this truth, he does not in fact identify himself with passion, conceit [or any] view.

Pañcame brāhmaṇasaccānīti brāhmaṇānaṃ saccāni tathāni. So tena na samaṇoti maññatīti so khīṇāsavo tena saccena ‘ahaṃ samaṇo’ ti taṇhāmānadiṭṭhīhi na maññati.

(Brāhmaṇasaccasuttavaṇṇanā Mp 19.4.5)

Those, who attend these teachings and ‘stand on the truth’ (sacce ṭhitā) are described in the commentaries as samaṇabrāhmaṇā14: ‘Brahmin ascetics who by the virtue of adhering to the truth, cross over the realms of birth and death’ (sacce ṭhitā samaṇabrāhmaṇā ca, taranti jātimaraṇassa pāran’ ti) (Spk-A 10.12.246). The concept of ‘truth (sacca)’15 is widely used in the Pāli Canon. However, although we know that the Buddha did not teach directly by words the ultimate truth16, his teachings later seem to have been regarded as the very revelation of the ultimate truth, in a sense that echoes the ideas of Vedic Brahmins. This is plausible in how was explained the meaning of the compound brāhmaṇasacca by commentators of the Canon, who tend to affirm that what the Buddha said was per se the ‘holy truth’ or even more accurately to their interpretation, as I argue in this paper, as the very ‘truth of the (authentic) Brahmin’17.

2.1. The Commentaries of the Canon and the Buddha as the Supreme Brahmin

Commentators on the Canon suggest that the Buddha’s pragmatism indicates that nibbāna (the ultimate truth, referred as paramatthasacca) is realized by internalizing the principle of non-harming towards all living beings, and explanation that supports the interpretation of what was defined by the Buddha’s followers to be an authentic representant of the ideal of being regarded as Brahmin18, which was, to achieve arhantship, the ‘holy state of having destroyed mental defilements’19 (brāhmaṇo saccamāhāti evam pi vadanto khīṇāsavabrāhmaṇo) (Mp XIX.4.5). The influence of Brahminical thought can be noticed in the description that reads that ‘through truth the god (probably a tacit allusion to Indra) sends down thunder, those established in truth aspire to nirvāṇa’ (saccena devo thanayaṃ pavassati, sacce ṭhitā nibbutiṃ patthayanti) and also it is added that attaining the ultimate reality (paramatthasaccaṃ) of nibbāna also requires internalization of these teachings and truthful detachment (viratisaccaṃ) (Pj II 1.10). It is important to see furthermore, that the Buddhist exegetes affirmed that ‘there is only one truth, not two’20 when they referred to the ultimate truth (paramatthasaccaṃ) (Spk-A 1.328), a statement that remind us of the monistic view of the truth (sát) alleged in ancient Brahminism21. Regarding the explanation of the meaning of truth (sacca), later commentators did not refute the definition of ascetics and Brahmins as those who ‘stand on the truth’ (sacce ṭhitā) if they are established in abstinence (Veramaṇīsu hi paciṭṭhitā samaṇabrāhmaṇā ‘sacce ṭhitā’ ti vuccanti (SN-ṭ I.282). They also explained brahmaṇasaccāni to be the truths of the ultimate Brahmins (paramatthabrahmānaṃ saccāni), which were related as the achievement of Buddhists, namely the arhants and, of course, the Buddha himself.

Nirvāṇa is the truth and ultimate reality. This means having internalized and being entirely involved with them. These ultimate truths indeed are [full of] pleasantness. Those who practice these truths wield the majestic power of truthful speech.

Paramatthabhūtaṃ saccaṃ nibbānaṃ. Abbhantaraṃ katvāti antogadhameva katvā, tehi saddhinti attho paramatthasaccānam pi sādutarattā. Yassānubhāvenāti yassa vācāsaccassa ānubhāvena.

(SN-ṭ I.282)

Theravāda scholars attempted to explain the inexpressible experience of nirvāṇa, described as we have seen above as paramatthabhūtaṃ saccaṃ, as the ultimate truth (paramatthasacca)22, defining this spiritual achievement as Brahmin: ‘He who has crossed over and gone to the further shore stands on dry land. Few men go to the further shore’ (tiṇṇo pāraṅgato thale tiṭṭhati brāhmaṇo)23. The echoes of Brahminical influence24 in the transmission of Buddhism suggest the way in which the Buddha was regarded as the ultimate representation of the concept of Brahmin, since he was interpreted as the most powerful representative of Bráhman (Villamor 2025b). The Brahminical interpretation of the Buddha and his teachings is supported by the beliefs and descriptions discussed in the commentaries, in which the Buddha is clearly praised as the foremost Brahmin. This is evident in the development of Buddhist thought, as seen in the tradition of the nikāyas, which show an undeniable tendency to worship the Buddha as the supreme Brahmin (Villamor 2026a), by defining him as both: brāhmaṇa and Brahmā (Villamor 2024b, 2025c, 2026b).

‘Here, [the term] brāhmaṇo, ‘Brahmā, applies to parents and to the first teacher—in this context, to the parents. It also refers to the supreme being—here, [to the Buddha, who] ‘turns the wheel of Brahmā’ Here it is said: ‘The Great Brahmā’ [is a tittle for] Brahmins, parents, and the Tathāgatas—the supreme ones who turn the sound of Brahmā. Another interpretation [might be]: ‘Brahmā’ refers to three kinds of Brahmins—a conventional Brahmin (sammutibrahmāno), a Brahmin by rebirth (upapattibrahmāno), and a pure Brahmin (visuddhibrahmāno).

Ettha brāhmaṇo. ‘Brahmāti mātāpitaro, pubbācariyāti vuccare’ti ettha mātāpitaro. ‘Brahmacakkaṃ pavattetī ’ti ettha seṭṭhaṃ25. Etthetaṃ vuccati’’–

‘Mahābrahmani vippe ca, atho mātāpitūsu ca; Tathāgate ca seṭṭhe ca, brahmasaddo pavattatī’ ti. Aparo nayo—brahmāti tividhā brahmāno sammutibrahmāno upapattibrahmāno visuddhibrahmānoti’.

(Sadd 198)

Buddhist exegetes26 employed this last definition of a ‘pure Brahmin’ (visuddhibrahmāno), for centuries, in their discourse of worshiping and portraying the Buddha as the true, legitimate Brahmin. Other passages in the commentaries clarify that the Buddha(s) are called Brahmā, a synonymous (adhivacana) for them: the highest Brahmins (uttamabrahmā) defined as that type of ‘pure Brahmins’ (visuddhibrahmāno) who embodied the very virtues of Brahminhood (brahmabhūtehi guṇehi), due to their ultimate Brahmā-nature (paramatthabrahmatāya)27. These references follow the negotiation of the figure of the Buddha as the supreme knower of Bráhman. Initially praised as its leading representative, Brahmā, an idea that was later rejected by Buddhists when the Buddha’s popularity made such a concession acceptable (Villamor 2025b, p. 28). This can be seen in the following sections of the commentaries, where the Buddha is described as superior to Brahmā even when he is praised in terms associated with Brahmā. As previous scholarship has discussed, the Canon cover words in which the Buddha identified himself as the Great Brahmā (Villamor 2025b, pp. 15–17; 2025c, p. 37; 2026b, 20, pp. 7–8). However, it is evident that the necessity to negotiate the figure of the Buddha within Brahminical culture was not a matter of particular concern to the Buddha himself, but rather to his followers. Commentaries on the allusion to the passage of AN iv 89 (It-A 1.75), remembered that passage and reflect how he was praised through concepts and terms introduced to attribute glory to him, as if he were the Vedic god Brahmā28. Buddhist exegetes explained that the Buddha had the ability to understand not only where those who are reborn in Brahmaloka are, but also the gnostic experience of the Vedic Brahmins, described as a mystical experience of becoming the ‘Unvanquished’ (abhibhū), a title traditionally attributed to Vedic gods such as Indra (Villamor 2025c, pp. 35–36) and Brahmā (Villamor 2026b, pp. 7–8) in Brahminism. The Buddha’s achievement, and that of those who had a complete understanding of the ultimate truth—referred to as the neutral concepts of Dhamma/Bráhman—was seen as his acknowledgement of becoming one with it (brahmabhūta). The commentators of the Canon inherited the significant assertion of earlier Buddhist generations (Villamor 2025b) that the Buddha was omniscient due to his realization of Bráhman. Among Buddhists, the Buddha was worshipped as Brahmā, just as the Vedic god was worshipped by Brahmins as the personification of sacred knowledge and full awareness of the ultimate truth he was believed to embody.

‘He, the Blessed One, certainly knows knowing and sees seeing. He is the [sacred] eye, the [sacred] knowledge, the Dharma, the Brahma(n) (…) Everything is known through the knowledge of the Buddha’.

So hi bhagavā jānaṃ jānāti, passaṃ passati, cakkhubhūto ñāṇabhūto dhammabhūto brahmabhūto (…) sabbaṃ taṃ anto buddhañāṇe parivattati.

(Nidd II 159)

‘Nothing is unknown, unseen, uncomprehended, unverified, or unexperienced by the wisdom of that Blessed One. Regarding the past, future, and present, all phenomena fall within the scope of the Buddha’s wisdom. Everything is known through the knowledge of the Buddha’.

natthi tassa bhagavato aññātaṃ adiṭṭhaṃ aviditaṃ asacchikataṃ aphassitaṃ paññāya. Atītaṃ anāgataṃ paccuppannaṃ upādāya sabbe dhammā sabbākārena buddhassa bhagavato ñāṇamukhe āpāthaṃ āgacchanti. (…) sabbaṃ taṃ antobuddhañāṇe parivattati.

(Nidd I 1.177)

‘Whether it is the ultimate meaning or any other meaning, everything is known through the knowledge of the Buddha’.

paramattho vā attho, sabbaṃ taṃ antobuddhañāṇe parivattati.

(Paṭis 2.194)

The Brahminical context was from the very beginning consistently alluded to when negotiating the image of the Buddha (Villamor 2026a). Therefore, before examining how teachings referred to as brāhmaṇasacca were transmitted into Chinese, it is important to consider how this distinctive strategy of praising the Buddha in Brahminical terms was developed—particularly after Sanskrit was adopted as the primary language within Buddhist communities29.

2.2. The Buddha, Praised as Brahmā in the Poetry of the Sanskrit Cosmopolis

The idea of praising the Buddha as part of the Brahminical milieu was inherited30 in Sanskrit Buddhist poetry. This practice was an integral part of worshipping the social and religious status of the Buddha’s image. This historical aspect can be seen in the Buddhacarita (Bc), a work by Aśvaghoṣa (80–150 CE), one of the first Buddhist composers to use Sanskrit as the language of Buddhism, in the second century CE (Baba 2022, p. 66). When Aśvaghoṣa stated that the Bodhisattva did not agree with the explanations given by Ālāra Kālāma (also known as Arāḍa Kālāma) (Bc XII.69–83), which were evidently based on Brahminical orthodoxy, we can see that, like many Buddhists in previous generations, Aśvaghoṣa attempted to present Buddhism as a tradition superior to the religion of Vedic Brahmins, in negotiation with the Brahminical context. Those who were relevant to the discourse of Buddhists, as one would expect, are praised accordingly. In Buddhist history, the Buddha is generally considered the most iconic figure. Furthermore, the verses of Aśvaghoṣa mention the mystic vision of signals (nimitta) (Bc I.49), which were seen by Asita, the Vedic seer who, according to Buddhist biographies, predicted the future possibilities of the Buddha. Given this context and the fact that ‘him’ is marked in the accusative, I believe that the following passage is not praising Asita as a Vedic seer who (is expected to be the subject of seeing that: the mentor of the King (rājño gurur)) has achieved liberation by knowing Bráhman, but rather that the verses worship the Buddha through Asita’s vision, as (if were) narrated from his mind.

[After having seen] him, shining, who has realized Bráhman, the knower of Bráhman, who embodied the glory of sacred knowledge and the glory of ascetism—the king’s teacher, [Asita], with honor and proper respect, was invited to enter the palace of the king.

taṃ brahmavidbrahmavidaṃ31 jvalantaṃ brāhmyā śriyā caiva tapaḥśriyā ca. rājño gururgauravasatkriyābhyāṃ praveśāyāmāsa narendrasadma.

(Bc I.50)

Furthermore, as in the traditions of the Canon, when negotiation was imperative, narratives tended to present Buddhist practitioner leaders as sounding, from early in the history of Buddhism, imposingly familiar to Brahminical minds. There are some relevant passages that portray how the term ‘Brahmin’ was defined by Buddhists as someone who had realized Bráhman—the neuter principle that Vedic Brahmins also assumed to be the ultimate truth. The term Brahmin here, is referring among Buddhist, to those who have attained liberation, the Buddhist concept of arahantship which, as we can verify again (Bhattacharya 1973, p. 73; Neri and Pontillo 2016, p. 145), meant Brahminhood.

For this reason, in the world, the [authentic] Brahmins [are those] who speak about the Absolute Bráhman, practice Brahmacarya and in this world, encourage [other Buddhist] Brahmins to dwell [with them].

ityartha brāhmaṇā loke paramabrahmavādinaḥ32 brahmacarya carantīha brāhmaṇānvāsayanti ca.

(Bc XII.42)

There is a reference to three teachings in a similar way (trīṇi brāhmaṇasatyāni) in a hymn composed by Mātṛceṭa33 within the Varṇārhavarṇastotra (Vav)34, a text which also is intended to praise the Buddha. Several sections of this ode in Vav, which pays tribute to the Buddha, can also be found in the Mpp (Hartmann 1988, p. 177). The Vav’s poetic arrangement describes the Buddha as the most iconic representative of the Brahminical worldview. As I have argued above, this way of thinking is part of the religious cultural heritage of Indian Buddhism.

Vav 7.12–17

(Hartmann 1987, TLB)

The Brahmins, who are Brahma’s sons, are his descendants born from his mouth. Your teachings are a valuable treasure that is widely discussed throughout the world.

brāhmaṇā brahmaṇaḥ putrā aurasā mukhajā iti, prasṛto lokavādo ’yaṃ tvayi sāphalyam āgataḥ.

(Vav 7.12)

You, oh Brahmā, yours is the right path of religious practice, you [are] the foremost amongst Brahmin seers. You are the guide and the formulator, you are the sacrificial priest, you are the household priest.

tvaṃ brahmā35 pratipad brāhmī tvayi tvaṃ brāhmaṇarṣabhaḥ, praṇetā copanetā ca tvam ṛtvik tvaṃ purohitaḥ36.

(Vav 7.13)

No one you purify will become impure. No Brahmin you initiate will fall from Brahminhood.

na tvayā saṃskṛtaḥ kaś cid bhavati brāhmaṇo ’śuciḥ, na copanīto brāhmaṇyāt patati brāhmaṇaḥ punaḥ.

(Vav 7.14)

The three brāhmaṇasatyāni comprise the three Brahminic marks, the three Brahminic lineages, and the three chief Brahmins.

trīṇi brāhmaṇasatyāni trividhaṃ brāhmalakṣaṇam, t(r)īṇi (b)r(ā)hmaṇagot(rā)ṇi brā(hma)ṇapravarās trayaḥ.

(Vav 7.15)

Certainly, there is no conduct of a Brahmin, religious path anywhere, or Dharma [that should be followed] by Brahmins, other than your doctrine.

na hi brāhmaṇasāmīcī na brāhmī pratipat kva cit, na brāhmaṇ(av-)dharmā anyatra tava śāsa(nā)t.

(Vav 7.16)

All the well-spoken words in the world are derived from your instruction. This is the unique and immaculate declaration of the Sugata.

yāva(t s)u(bhāṣitaṃ) loke sarvaṃ tat tava śāsanāt, (sugat)ā(v)eṇikaivaiṣā niravadyābhilāpitā.

(Vav 7.17)

The references to the Brahmanical context in the Vav are not just noticeable but are a clear sign of the desire to praise the Buddha and his teachings as the most advanced at Brahminical world. Buddhists worshiped the Buddha as Brahmā—the(ir) legitimate personification of ultimate wisdom. Before examining the paradigmatic passage referring brāhmaṇasatya in Chinese sources, we need to reconsider he possibility that the transmission of this passage into Chinese derived from the Sanskrit parallel version of AN ii 176, which mentions three teachings37, not four.

3. Divergences Between the Pāli and Sanskrit Versions

The first noticeable difference between the Pāli text and its Sanskrit version (Brāhmaṇasatyāni SĀ(Hos 3.5)) is not only in the number of the teachings classified, but also in the discursive adscription. In the Sanskrit version, before describing the teachings, it is noted that those three wanderers are described as Brahmins (brāhmaṇaparivrājaka), and that they, ‘after seeing him, prepared a seat for the Blessed One and said the following’ (dṛṣṭvā ca punar bhagavato ‘rthāyāsanaṃ prajñapayanty evaṃ cāhur) SĀ(Hos3.3). The narrative style of this text is odd. After introducing the context of the encounter, it is used in the first person to assert that the Buddha was the one who realized by himself the knowledge implicit in the three teachings. However, the Sanskrit version of this passage differs from the Pāli version in transmitting that each of the three teachings38 were imparted by these wandering individuals (the verb and subject are presented in the plural)39. (This may have derived from the interpretation of brāhmaṇa rather than the ancient metaphor of the Buddha for someone who realizes these precepts through practice in life, as a label of holiness from a social and religious point of view).

Dear friend Gautama, we were assembled and sitting together in a great assembly of Brahmin wanderers, sitting together near a lotus pond on the Sumāgadhī [river], when this conversation arose. By this, dear friend Gautama, this was certainly said [and that is why] we gathered and sat together.

These [are] the three brāhmaṇasatyāni that I have proclaimed, having realized them myself with direct knowledge and renunciation. Which three?

iyam asmākaṃ bho gautama saṃbahulānāṃ brāhmaṇaparivrājakānāṃ sumāgadhāyāḥ puṣkariṇyās tīre sanniṣaṇṇānāṃ sannipatitānām antarākathā viprakṛtā. tayā ca bho gautama kathayaitarhi sanniṣaṇṇāḥ saṃnipatitāḥ

trīṇi imāni brāhmaṇasatyāni. yāni mayā svayam abhijñāya sākṣīkṛtvopasaṃpadya praveditāni. katamāni trīṇi.

(SĀ(Hos 3.4–5))

Except for the explanation of sensual pleasures, the teachings in the Sanskrit text continue in line with the teachings found in AN ii 166, emphasizing the importance of accepting impermanence and not harming any creature. However, even when its lines assert that the Buddha (here inconsistently presented as the narrator) acquired this knowledge himself, his characteristic pragmatism as portrayed in the Pāli version is lost here. The wording in the Pāli version is like its Sanskrit parallel. The Buddhist authors of the Sanskrit version corroborate that the Buddha acknowledged those teachings by himself (idaṃ prathamaṃ brāhmaṇasatyaṃ yan mayā svayam abhijñāya). However, despite the semantic similarity, the pragmatism demonstrated by the Buddha is absent from the interpretation in Sanskrit, which describes a Brahmin as being aligned with the truth simply by formulating these teachings (‘Brahmins [who] speak [this] have spoken the truth, not falsehood’ (vadamānā brāhmaṇāḥ satyam āhur na mṛśā (SĀHos3)6–8)). The Pāli text recalls, on the other hand, the Buddha’s pragmatism. This can be seen implicitly in the reference to what should be regarded as brāhmaṇasacca: following the path and living its practice (paṭipanno hoti), rather than merely ‘understanding the truth intuitively’ (Api ca yadeva tattha saccaṁ tadabhiññāya AN ii 176). The Sanskrit version does not refer to the words of the Buddha, which define an authentic ‘Brahmin’ in his pragmatic view, by not clinging to the most popular religious identitarian marks of his time. It seems likely that this passage was translated into Sanskrit at a time when the development of Buddhist religious identity, negotiated by the terms samaṇa and brāhmaṇa (McGovern 2018), did not allow Buddhists to translate this critical teaching of the Buddha. This reflection is only preserved somehow in the first teaching.

Those who do not regard themselves as superior, equivalent or inferior, they are the ones who, in this sense, live the truth in all realms, with a mind of friendship, without attachment.

śreyāṃsaḥ sma iti manyante sadṛśā sma iti manyante hīnā sma iti manyante yad atra satyaṃ tad anabhiniveśya sarvaloke maitrāsahagatena cittena viharanti.

(SĀ(Hos3.6))

As long as it was stated earlier, one who perceives the origin and decay, lives the truth in all realms without attachment.

pūrvavad yāvad iti yad atra satyaṃ tad anabhiniviśya sarvaloke udayavyayānudarśino viharaṃti.

(SĀ(Hos3.7))

As long as it was stated earlier, one who continues not being attached to the idea of a self, lives the truth in all realms without attachment.

pūrvavad yāvad iti yad atra satyaṃ tad anabhiniviśya sarvaloke amamāyanto viharaṃti.

(SĀ(Hos3.8))

It is interesting to note that the explanation given by the Buddha for avoiding identification with religious groups such as the Brahmins or ascetics was not presented directly in the Sanskrit version of this passage. The narrative states that it was the Buddha who acknowledged the truths referred to as brāhmaṇasatya, whereas the text claims that it was Vedic Brahmins who instructed the Buddha in that occasion. It is highly doubtful that Buddhists would have believed that there were Brahmins capable of being the Buddha’s mentors. The only instance in which Buddhist authors assumed that Brahmins by birth preceded the Buddha was in the specific case of Former Buddhas40. The Sanskritization41 of this passage may have influenced Buddhist authors to unconsciously praise the Buddha, as was common in Brahminical culture, and impacted how the Buddha was praised as a legitimate Brahmin. However, instead, the rewording found in the SĀ(Hos) expressed the concern of rejecting social labels that made Buddhist appear to be regarded as noble religious practitioners.

Although the religious and cultural background of the Chinese sources differed from the Brahminical milieu, the expression of brāhmaṇasatya was generally transliterated. This expression, at least, socially, should have implied a metaphor for Chinese Buddhists, as originally was intended, by the Buddha. However, the vocation of the Chinese parallels portrays the reticence seen in the Sanskrit version for criticizing the identitarian labels of Indian Buddhists.

4. The Chinese Translations of Brāhmaṇasatya

According to Sutta Central, the EĀ-Chi42 26.8 (T125(2)639a1-11) is a parallel text with correspondences to the Pāli version of the Brāhmaṇasaccasutta (AN ii 176–177). This text places the meeting in the Jetavana temple 祇樹給孤獨園of Śrāvastī, while the reference to the compound and the Buddha’s pragmatic teaching against Brahmanical and ascetic traditional religious identity (presumably discussed at this meeting according to the Pāli source) are absent. Moreover, an audience of Buddhist monks and lay people of both gender (比丘・比丘尼・清信士・清信女) are said to be listening to the Buddha. Moreover, the four teachings found in EĀ-Chi as the four dharmas (四法) do not have a direct concordance with the teachings of AN II 176–177; rather, they are plausibly restructured as the Four Seals of Dharma. This text also says that the Buddha, the narrator of this passage, confirmed these teachings as the four wisdoms (我今知之) he recognized, which is consistent with the Indian sources analyzed above, as being taken by Buddhist authors as their most important ways of articulating ultimate truth.

Thus have I heard. Once the Buddha was at Śrāvastī in the temple of Jetavana. During the rainy season the Blessed One told the monks, ‘I am no longer alone. [I have gained] great respect from bhikkhus, bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen. From all those in the world [I receive] exclusive homage. There are now four wisdoms which I have recognized myself. This has also been realized by the four groups of celestial beings. What are these four? The first is the impermanence of all experience. I have already realized this and so have the four groups of celestial beings. The second is that all experiences lead to suffering. The third is that there is no (permanent) self to be found in any experience. The fourth is the ultimate peace of nirvāṇa. I have already recognized this and so have the four groups of celestial beings. These, monks, are the four wisdoms which the celestial beings also worshipped. This was the teaching of the Blessed One to the monks during the rainy season. Delighted [by this teaching] they followed it.

EĀ-Chi 26.843

聞如是。一時佛在舍衞國祇樹給孤獨園。爾時世尊告諸比丘。我今非獨在比丘比丘尼清信士清信女中爲尊。乃至世間人民中獨尊。今有四法本末我躬自知之。而作證於四部之衆天上人中。云何爲四。一者一切諸行皆悉無常。我今知之。於四部之衆天上人中而作證。二者一切諸行苦。三者一切諸行無我。四者涅槃休息。我今知之。於四部之衆於天上人中而作證。 是謂比丘四法之本。是故於天上人中而獨得尊。 爾時諸比丘聞佛所説。歡喜奉行.

(T125(2)639a1–11)

Other parallels in Chinese translations44 such as ASA 2.26845 (uncertain translator, between 385–431 CE) (Enomoto 1984, p. 103) and SĀ-Chi 97246 (translated under the direction of Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 in 435–443 CE) (Lamotte 1993, p. 1; Bingenheimer 2011, p. 12) describe how the Buddha encountered a group of Vedic Brahmins. The encounter is located in the temple (vihāra) of Venuvana (ASA 2.268迦蘭陀竹林) (SĀ-Chi 972 迦蘭陀竹園). The two texts quote three teachings, again narrated as confirmed by the Buddha himself, following the narration of the SĀ(Hos), which seems to be the text used for their translation into Chinese. However, these interpretations tend to advocate these teachings as the ultimate truth47.

The brāhmaṇasatya spoken by the Buddha to the Brahmin monks [was taught] in this way. There are three types of brāhmaṇasatya, which I acknowledged by myself with Enlightenment and perfect wisdom.

SĀ-Chi 972

如是婆羅門眞諦 […] 佛告婆羅門出家 有三種婆羅門眞實 我自覺悟成等正覺.

(T99(2)251b1–b02)

These [are the] brāhmaṇasatya taught by the Buddha. […] In the past, when I was seeking in the path, for Enlightenment, I acknowledged this stage by myself. These are the three ultimate truths in the world.

ASA 2.268

此是婆羅門諦 […] 佛告之曰[…] 我昔求道初成正覺已證知竟[…] 一切世間不過三諦.

(T100(2)450c14–c16)

The three teachings described in these Chinese versions correspond with the Sanskrit version of SĀ(Hos)48.

SĀ-Chi 972

(1)

不害一切衆生 是婆羅門眞諦 非爲虚妄 […] 第一婆羅門眞諦

Refrain from hurting (intentionally) any kind of life. This is a brāhmaṇasatya, not falsehood. […] This is the first brāhmaṇasatya.

(2)

所有集法 皆是滅法 此是眞諦 非爲虚妄 […] 第二婆羅門眞諦

There is a cause [for suffering]. All things must pass. That is [a part of] the ultimate truth. This is not falsehood. […] This is the second brāhmaṇasatya.

(3)

無我處所及事 都無所有 無我處所及事 都無所有 此則眞諦 非爲虚妄 […] 是名第三婆羅門眞諦 我自覺悟成等正覺

To acquire the realm of realizing non-selfness is realizing nothingness (akiṃcana/abhāva). Realizing nothingness is acquiring the realm of realizing non-selfness. This is [a part of] the ultimate truth. This is not falsehood. […] This is the third brāhmaṇasatya, which I have acknowledged by myself with Enlightenment and perfect wisdom.

The three teachings (三法) regarded as fragments of transcendental truth in ASA 2.268 are basically the same three points. However, this version emphasizes even more the importance of a ‘compassionate heart’ 慈心.

ASA 2.268

(1)

所謂一切不殺 此語是實 非虚妄説 […] 諸衆生恒生慈心 此是婆羅門初諦

It was said: Refrain from hurting (intentionally) any life. This words are truth, not falsehood. […] Having a compassionate heart for all kind of live beings. This is the first brāhmaṇasatya.

(2)

一切苦集是生滅法 如斯之言 眞實不虚 […] 是名婆羅門第二諦

Everything is suffering. All things must arise and perish, this is the universal law. These words represent it. This is the truth, not falsehood. […] This is called the second brāhmaṇasatya.

(3)

我以知此生滅相故 成等正覺 […] 婆羅門第三諦者

I (the Buddha speaking) acknowledged dependent origination: all things must arise and perish. This is the Abhisaṃbodhi. […] This is the third brāhmaṇasatya.

The teachings of the Buddha related with the compound brāhmaṇasatya, were transmitted into Chinese. However, the ethical implications were diversely interpreted in these Chinese versions. The ASA 2.268 remarks that merely hearing the explanation of the Buddha made that Brahmins reach arahantship (得阿羅漢果). This upgrading is evidenced by accounts whereby; after following the Buddhist path, they pass from the status of tīrthika (外道)—unbelievers (不信) of the Dharma (法)—to monks (比丘). On the other hand, the version of SĀ-Chi 972 describes how the Buddha won a debate against wanderer Brahmins, who could not contend with him (衆多婆羅門出家默然住). Thus, it is related, they decided to practice the Dharma, and follow religious life (brahmacariyā梵行) and ascetism修行of the ascetic Gautama (referred as 沙門瞿曇法, with the archaic Chinese phonetical transliteration of 瞿曇 Qūtán for ‘Gautama’). The catechetical narrative in the analyzed Chinese translations of this passage glorifies the Buddha’s achievements by referencing his teachings and referring to them as ‘Brahmin’ (婆羅門) and ‘truth(s)’ (諦), which are external to the Chinese religious and cultural context. The divergence in Chinese renditions of this passage can be attributed to their adaptation from different sources. However, despite these minor discrepancies, the primary message of these teachings remains unchanged in the Chinese translations, which portray the Buddha as a peerless figure. Commentators of the Canon tended to praise the Buddha as the incarnation of ultimate truth and sacred knowledge when discussing the meaning of the compound brāhmaṇasacca. This was also the case for educated Brahmins in India, for whom it represented the ultimate sacred (brāhmaṇa) reality (sacca). In the case of the Buddha, the teaching beyond this compound implied the use of metaphorical language for practical application. His instruction not to be attached to mental labelling implied more than words. However, the Sanskrit version did not convey his denial of the necessity of claiming the two social identitarian marks advocated by Indian Buddhists. Consequently, this point was unknown to Chinese Buddhists. This paper challenges previous analyses of this term, arguing that the Buddha may have reinterpreted the meaning of this compound as a metaphor. However, his followers, influenced by Brahminical orthodoxy, understood and transmitted this as a literal revelation of ‘the truth of the (authentic) Brahmin’ (a genitive tatpuruṣa).

5. Conclusions

Although we cannot ascertain the direct Indic sources of many of the Chinese translations (Silk 2012, pp. 92–93), nor the accurate route of transmission of the texts analyzed in this paper, the parallelism between the Indian and Chinese versions is obvious. It is likely that the AN passage contains the oldest oral tradition of those analyzed in this paper. This is not only because the nikāyas tradition in the Pali Canon49 had no further additions after the first century BCE (Law 1931, p. 149; Wynne 2005, p. 46), but also due to the thought it portrays. As discussed in this study, the AN version of the Buddha’s ethical teachings, regarded as brāhmaṇasacca, illustrates how the Buddha rejected the conventional accepted religious identitarian labels of his time and emphasized that nothing is more sacred than practicing the Dharma—the pragmatic method he taught to realize the truth through intention. This is what he meant to explain to the Vedic Brahmins as brāhmaṇasacca. In the Sanskrit version of this passage, however, these truths were interpreted as the affirmations that the Brahmins at that time explained to the Buddha, with no mention of his non-conformity for advocating a religious identity other than correct behavior. Although the transmission of this passage did not differ in the loss of the Buddha’s ethical exhortations, the glorification of his teachings was interpreted more strongly in its Chinese versions. As discussed in this paper, the surrounding teachings indicated by the compound brāhmaṇasacca (and its further translations), preserve the teachings of the Buddha and textual evidence of his exaltation. The belief in the possibility of transmitting in a catechetical way what was, in the Buddha’s perspective, inexpressible, entails a significant belief among Buddhists, which has influenced how many of his teachings were interpreted and (re)presented.