The Buddha as the Legitimate Knower of Bráhman—The Brahminical Interpretation of the Brahmin Disciples of the Buddha

Abstract

The influence of Brahmanism on Buddhist thought, is plausible in the Pāli Canon. Words attributed to the Buddha say that he defined himself as Brahmā (AN 4.89) and that he can read the very thoughts of the Vedic god (aham asmi brahmā mahābrahmā DN 1.18, DN 1.221, DN 3.29). There are many other instances in the canon where Buddhists have interpreted terms in ways that did not develop from the context of orthodox Brahmanism. It has been documented even that Vedic Brahmins (who at the end converted to Buddhism) consistently asked the Buddha for the way to realize Brahma(n) (MN 2.206, DN 1.249), a hope also shared by Buddhists to be attained in the afterlife (AN 3.225, MN 2.76–78, DN 2.195), using the same formulas that the canonical tradition records as having been used by the Buddha to describe not his teachings (AN 3.371, AN 4.135) but the beliefs of ancient Brahmins (AN 4.103). Why is Buddhism understood in the light of Brahmanism? Why is Brahminical terminology and religious thought so present in the interpretation of the Buddha’s teachings? This paper discusses the historical influence of Upaniṣadic thought on the development and transmission of Buddhism. Here, I propose two significant theoretical frameworks to understand the development of Indian Buddhism: (1) the Buddha was praised as Brahmā: as the supreme Brahmin, represented by Buddhists as (2) the legitimate knower of Bráhman. Since the times of the Buddha, converted Brahmins, such as Sāriputta, seem to have influenced significantly the transmission of Indian Buddhism. This is reflected in Chinese translations, which portray an earlier interpretation of Buddhism, before the late opposition against Brahminism was established in Theravāda, and the decline of Brahmā and rebirth in the Brahmaloka were relegated in Buddhism as subordinate entities.

1. Introduction: Buddhism or Brahmanism?

The authority of the contents of the Canon has been endorsed through many revisions and generations of religious scholarship. If what earlier scholars (Shulman 2014, p. 54) argued is true and the main ideas and contents of the Pāli discourses were quite closed,1 apart from small differences in how they were written down (Anālayo 2022b, p. 13), we need to consider why, and how, the Brahminical legacy I am discussing in this paper, has been remembered and regarded as part of Buddhist orthodoxy.2

Scholars have not reached a consensus on the discussion of Early Buddhism. Some posit that it emerged in response to Brahmanism (Deshpande 1994; Gombrich 2013; Olivelle 2012; Shults 2014). Contrarily, recent scholarship has claimed that Buddhism may have emerged, in relation with Sāṃkhya philosophy, from the intellectual cultural background defined as ‘the Brahmanical avant-garde’ (McGovern 2022). This research discussed Wynne’s (2007) findings on the origins of Buddhist meditation within the context of Brahminical religious traditions. Contrary to Bronkhorst’s (2007) thesis, McGovern argues that Buddhism did not emerge from an independent intellectual culture in Magadha, but rather as a significant part of the most advanced Brahmanism at that time (2022, p. 37). It is doubtful that the thought of Vedic Brahmins was the dominant religion in Magadha at the time of the Buddha.3 In my perspective, it is also doubtful that Brahmanism was not the dominant thought4 on the interpretation of many of the Buddha’s most famous disciples, whose early tradition holds to be of a Brahminical origin. It is noticeable how the process of representing the figure of the Buddha within the Brahmanical milieu, developed over many records, inherited in the Canon. For example, this is plausible in the Vinaya tradition, where we can see the early negotiation of his figure through ancient Brahminical thought, with the tradition of the Atharva Veda (AV) as the most relevant. In the Vinaya, the Buddha is not identified as Indra or Brahmā; rather, these Vedic gods are explained as being at the feet of the Buddha, giving homage to his figure represented to be, the highest fire worshipper who converted entire communities of famous (Vedic) Brahmins. Observing these aspects of the way the Buddha is praised in the Vinaya allows us to understand the process of how Brahminical thought was assimilated in Buddhist literature, which seems to have passed through three stages: (1) negotiation, (2) assimilation and (3) negation (Villamor 2026a). In this paper, I will reconsider the same theoretical framework and see if we can classify the references on the Brahminical religious culture of the Sutta tradition, similarly.

Motifs common to Brahmanical and Pāli texts suggest that the Vedic Brahmins and Buddhists were familiar with each other’s teachings (Shults 2014, p. 107). I agree with Schlieter (2012) that Brahmanism was not authoritative in north-eastern India (p. 142). However, I do not understand why we should wait for the Sanskritization of Buddhism to recognize the time when Brahminical thought influenced its development, given that Brahmins, who converted to Buddhism, could have influenced the oral transmission of the Buddha’s teachings. As I explain in this paper, they tended to interpret the Buddha’s teachings as educated Brahmins would have done. Historical evidence suggests that the relationship between Vedic Brahmins and Buddhists during the Buddha’s time was characterized not by hostility, but by mutual exchange and dialogue (Ellis 2021; Walser 2018; Tsuchida 1991). Therefore, rather than asking whether Buddhism is an extension or a rejection of Brahmanism, we should examine their interdependence in the Brahmanical discourse, apparently developed around the interpretation of the Buddha’s teachings.

The transformation of many of the ideas, remembered orally from Early Buddhism, into writing (Anālayo 2022a; Baba 2022, p. 31) was finally completed in the form of the Theravāda Canon between about the 4th–5th century CE (Baba 2022, p. 14). Therefore, the methodology of this study, based on the critical analysis of Buddhist literature, follows the suggestions of previous scholars, not only to focus on the Pāli Canon (for obvious reasons of chronology) (Baba 2022, p. 13; Bucknell 2022, p. 264; Enomoto 2005), but also to compare the transmission of the same ideas in other Buddhist traditions, among which some of its counterparts in Sanskrit and, especially, the Chinese āgamas,5 will be analysed in detail in this paper.

2. The Soteriology of the Upaniṣads and Converted Brahmins

The early Upaniṣads constantly state that those who realize Bráhman6 become part of it, the absolute, a transcendental attainment that is said to be completed after death, by becoming reborn in the Brahmaloka. This was described as a state of pure bliss (BṛU IV. 4.8–9), the ultimate goal (BṛU IV. 3.33; IV. 4.23) (Bausch 2015, p. 52)—which was similarly interpreted in Buddhism, as I will discuss below. If it is true that the Buddha’s interlocutors were principally Brahmins7 with instruction in the Upaniṣads (Gombrich 2013, p. 2), and if it is true that Buddhist texts often portray their conversion after being convinced by the higher knowledge of the Buddha himself, we can expect that, from his time, many of these Brahmins, converted to the new religion. I disagree with the earlier scholarship that asserts Buddhist thought was not influenced by the Upaniṣads (Chandra 1971). In this paper, I present evidence addressing the issues identified by previous scholarship (Bronkhorst 2007, p. 218) concerning the impact of Brahminical thought on interpretations of the Buddha’s teachings. There are many references in the Buddhist Canon to teachings that echo the philosophy of the early Upaniṣads (Bhattacharya 1973; Black 2011, pp. 153–54; Bronkhorst 2007, p. 216; Gombrich 2013, pp. 60, 193; Hashimoto 2022; Hosoda 1997; Kajihara 2021, p. 351; Villamor 2023b). Many references in the Buddhist Canon show the attempt of Buddhist authors to present the Buddha as the seer and knower of that ultimate truth (taṃ tvaṃ na jānāsi na passasi, taṃ ahaṃ jānāmi passāmi DN 1.34–35). These claims appear to be presented similarly to the classic formulae that characterized the mahāvākya of the early Upaniṣads (Tat tvam asi ChU 6.8.7; aham brahmāsmi BṛU 1.4.10). The theoretical structure and terminology of the Upaniṣads, was recurrently used for the same aim (Iti yāhaṃ dhammaṃ jānāmi taṃ tvaṃ dhammaṃ jānāsi, yaṃ tvaṃ dhammaṃ jānāsi tam ahaṃ dhammaṃ jānāmi MN 1.164–67, 240, 2.93, Sn 999, etc.) which in some passages of the Canon seems to have been used to reframe the Buddha as superior to Brahmā (tattha tvaṃ na jānāsi na passasi, tyāhaṃ jānāmi passāmi MN 1.329) (see Section 4 of this paper).

It is notable that Buddhist traditions hold some of the Buddha’s most famous disciples in high esteem. Many of his followers were converted to Buddhism from a Brahminical background.8 Some Brahmins who converted to Buddhism still thought of themselves as Brahmins.9 These advocations denote, at least, Brahminism as the religious culture background from which they were claiming to have been educated before their Buddhist ordination.

Brahmabandhu pure āsiṃ, idāni khomhi brāhmaṇo. Tevijjo nhātako camhi, sottiyo camhi vedagū ti

(Thā 221) (so idāni ’mhi Thī 290 (PTS))

Once, I was a kinsman of Brahman. Indeed I am still Brahmin. This is because I have completed Brahminical education, attained the highest knowledge, and I am well versed Brahmin in the three [Vedas].

Brahmabandhu pure āsiṃ, ajjamhi sacca brāhmaṇo. Tevijjo vedasampanno, sottiyo camhi nhātako ti

(Thī 251)

Once I was a kinsman of Brahman. Now indeed I am truly a Brahmin (saccaṃ PTS in acc.). This is because I have completed the knowledge of the three [Vedas], I have completed Brahminical education and I am well versed [in them].

The most popular among them, were Sāriputta, remembered as the wisest, and Moggallāna, who was said to have had the most incredible psychic powers, second only after the Buddha.10 In passages where the Buddha introduced them to his followers, they are presented as the highest among them.11 This discourse may have been crafted by Buddhist narrators, who tend to portray these two Brahmin disciples of the Buddha as more revered by the guardians of Brahmā.12 The Vedic Brahmanical advisors of various kings are referred to in many passages of the Canon as purohitas.13 However, there are also allusions that praise the Buddha indirectly as a purohita (DN 2.230–49) and it is said that he has taught ‘the unsurpassed path’ (esa maggo anuttaro) of the ‘true Dhamma’ (saddhammo) for rebirth in the realm of Brahma(n) (brahmalokūpapattiyāti DN 2.246). This type of expression, as Brahmapurohita, probably derived from the Brahminical knowledge of Buddhist renunciants, immersed from their youth within Vedic traditions,14 terms which also seem to have been interpreted in resonance with the soteriology of the Upaniṣads.15

Sāriputta and Moggallāna were converted from the Brahmanical religious tradition. According to some traditions they were born Brahmins and were first taught by Sañjaya (Sañjayī Vairaṭṭīputra Mvu III) (Pāli: Sañjaya Belaṭṭhiputta DN 1.48, 58, MN 2.2), a popular16 agnostic philosopher in ancient India who taught in the capital city of Magadha at the time of the Buddha (Nakamura 2021, p. 23). Under this wanderer mentor (sañcayo paribbājako Vin 2.110) we are told they practised brahmacariya (sāriputtamoggallānā sañcaye paribbājake brahmacariyaṃ caranti Vin 1.39). Since this description concerns their Brahminical training prior to converting to Buddhism, the term brahmacariya must be understood as referring here to ‘how they were living the holy life under this teacher’, which, we can fairly guess, implied religious teachings and practices with the aim of realizing Bráhman. Many of his followers joined the Buddha’s community (Copeland and Nizar 2024, pp. 620–21). Moreover, we are told that the Buddha did not agree with the teachings of this Brahmin (MN 2.217), and that the Buddha declared him to be the most ‘foolish and ignorant’ (sabbabālo sabbamūḷho DN 1.59) of any of the six contemporary philosophers of his time (SN 4.398). This rivalry, portrayed in the Canon, may have been based on the great influence of this philosopher at that time, who is remembered by Buddhists to have been followed by a great number of Brahmin wanderers (mahatiyā paribbājakaparisāya saddhiṃ Vin 1.39; AN-A 1.157, etc.). Buddhists legitimate the Buddha as the one at that time who achieved the highest level of liberating knowledge. When it is narrated that the Buddha met King Pasenadi for the first time, he is asked by the monarch (in a relation in which we find another Sañjaya, a Brahmin of the Ākāsa clan) about the existence of what in the Canon is called Brahmā.17 This discussion appears to have begun at the court of this king (imaṃ kathāvatthuṃ rājantepure), regarding the possibility of omniscience, a state which the Buddha claimed none of his contemporaries had attained. Contrary to the ambivalence of the Canon, the Chinese version of this passage details the context in which the Brahmin Sañjaya disputed the trust of this king with the Buddha about their understanding: not of the masculine god Brahmā, but of the neuter, cosmic principle of Bráhman.18 This reflects the concerns of many religious practitioners at the time of the Buddha (cf. n. 77) regarding the attainment of liberation, as explained in the Upaniṣads—to be achieved by realizing one’s own absoluteness.19 In the Pravrajyāvastu (PravV), one of the main textual sources of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, the narratives on the conversion of these two disciples confirm that Sañjaya may have instructed Sāriputta and Moggallāna in this aspects of Upaniṣadic thought, since he is described as explaining his approach to the Dharma (dharmanetrī) and the aim of his teachings to his disciples (kaś śiṣyāvavādaḥ kiṃ phalaṃ kim anuśaṃsaṃ brahmacaryam iti sa kathayaty aham asmi) which imply evident reference to the realization of Bráhman, described as bonding in Brahmaloka.20

3. The Brahminical Influence of Sāriputta in Buddhist Thought

Buddhist traditions have historically attributed great importance to Sāriputta and Moggallāna. Indeed, for several factions of the saṅgha, they could have acted as key mentors,21 sometimes regarded even as more influential than the Buddha himself.22 It is not only Buddhists who remember these renunciants as the leaders of the Buddhist community. Nakamura (2021, pp. 148–49) discussed the historical relevance of Sāriputta as the leading figure of the Buddhist community, even over the Buddha, basing his arguments on how Sāriputta was portrayed by Jains. As described in Isibhāsiyāiṃ (Isi 38), the Jains23 considered Sāriputta to be one of the most revered saints (sātiputteṇa buddheṇa arahatā isiṇā buitaṃ), such as Yājñavalkya (Jaṇṇavakkīya Isi 12) or Saṃjaya (Saṃjaijja Isi 39), among others (McGovern 2022, p. 30). It is hard to believe that the thought of the early Upaniṣads was not a philosophical reference for practitioners of the ascetic traditions of north-eastern India.24

According to Gombrich, the Buddha could have established the paradigm shift, using the concept of Bráhman in consistency with Dharma, to point his pragmatism and ethical practice based on intention (Gombrich 2013, pp. 189–90). In a certain view, this can be inferred, as is, for example, what was implied by his teachings referred to as brahmavihāra (cf. n. 43). However, the fusion and assimilation of terminology that includes the root brahma- in Buddhist thought, goes back to the trend of praising the Buddha. This can be seen in many other Brahminical ideas that shaped the transmission of the Buddha’s teachings, with a constant tendency to refer to terms related to Brahma(n) as the foundation of their arguments (Villamor 2026b, pp. 9–10).25 The expression ‘the Blessed One turns the wheel of Brahman’ (brahmacakkaṃ pavatteti)26 (MN 1.70–76), which was associated as equal to the ‘wheel of the Dharma’ (dhammacakka), among other expressions (Bhattacharya 1973, p. 91; Kumoi 1972), is associated with numerous examples found in the Pāli Canon, including the repeated formula that currently can be translated as: ‘after the body has been destroyed’ (kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā).27 This phrase is remembered as a counterargument taught to Sāriputta to prepare him for the situation of defending the Buddha’s superhuman qualities in the possible event of an argument with someone who did not believe in his religious authority (natthi samaṇassa Gotamassa uttariṃ manussa dhammā MN 1.71). Sāriputta confirms that the Buddha taught that there is no afterlife for a renunciate who has destroyed the defilements (khīṇāsavo bhikkhu kāyassa bhedā ucchijjati vinassati na hoti param maranā ti. evaṃ khvāham āvuso Bhagavatā dhammaṃ desitaṃ SN 3.111). This is consistently repeated in many Buddhist scriptures by recalling Sāriputta’s interpretation of the Buddha’s teachings in terms of this formula, which evidences the interest in portraying the Buddha and Sāriputta’s alleged ability to understand what happens to the body after death.28 Metaphysics are prominently discussed in the discourse associated with Sāriputta. These theories of the afterlife served as a source of rhetoric to spread the belief that the Buddha, through the ‘divine eye’ (dibbena cakkhunā) (AN 5.35–36)29 could not only observe, but confirm the destinations of rebirth (kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā apāyaṃ duggatiṃ vinipātaṃ nirayaṃ upapajjatī DN 2.181). This notion30 appears to have been constructed within the intellectual context of ‘threefold knowledge’ (tevijjā),31 which seem to be linked to the concept of the ‘eye of Bráhman’, the Brahmanical reflection of realizing Bráhman (cakṣur vai samrāṭ paramaṃ brahma. nainam cakṣur jahāti BṛU 4.1.4). The claim of Indian Buddhists is clear. The Brahmin disciples of the Buddha, such as Anuruddha and Moggallāna, and other converted Brahmins regarded as arhats (tevijjā iddhipattā ca, cetopariyāyakovidā, khīṇāsavā arahanto), embodied the divine eye (dibbena cakkhunā) due they are believed to have testified in Brahmaloka (tasmiṃ brahmaloke pāturahosi) about the more grandiosity of the Buddha, instead of Brahmā, who is seen as of an inferior religious status (nīcataraṃ bhagavato) (SN 1.144–145). Ānanda described the Buddha’s ineffable experience of entering the realm of Brahmaloka32 to Saṅgārava, a highly educated Brahmin from Candalakappa, in a similar manner (yāva brahmalokāpi kāyena vasaṃ vatteti’. Idaṃ vuccati, brāhmaṇa, iddhipāṭihāriyaṃ AN 1.170-172). As Ānanda is not considered to be of Brahminical origin, it is possible that several Brahmins who had converted to Buddhism, such as Gopaka Moggallāna, influenced him through the lens of Upanisadic thought (MN 3.12). Indeed, this instructive discourse served to exalt the ‘mental powers’ (iddhividha) attributed to many arhants (SN 5.270–290, 303, etc.). Many references to Brahmaloka seem to have been remembered by Ānanda, even as the goal (brahmalokāpi) for many Buddhist renunciates (imepi candimasūriye evaṃmahiddhike evaṃmahānubhāve pāṇinā parāmasati parimajjati. Yāva brahmalokāpi kāyena vasaṃ vatteti DN 3.281, MN 1.34, SN 5.264; AN 3.16, 29, 82; yāva Brahmalokā pi kāyena ‘va saṃvatteti AN 5.199). Ānanda is said to have recalled Brahmaloka as taught by the Buddha as the final stage of spiritual realization (nibbāne ñāṇaṃ SN 2.124), which is explained in terms that are clearly related to those that define arhantship (vimuttasmiṃ vimuttamiti ñāṇaṃ hoti. ‘khīṇā jāti, vusitaṃ brahmacariyaṃ, kataṃ karaṇīyaṃ, nāparaṃ itthattāyā’ti pajānāti SN 2.125; yāva brahmalokāpi kāyena vasaṁ vattesi (SN 2.126)).

Buddhists accepted that the vision of ultimate reality is a revelation of liberating knowledge, and therefore the knowledge of transcendental truth. The concepts of wisdom (vijjā) and knowledge (ñāṇa) were constructed in Buddhism accordingly, from the Brahmanical religious context, adapting significant Brahminical ideas related to not knowing (for Vedic Brahmins, Bráhman, the cosmic principle intrinsic to their religious traditions), as the state of ignorance (avijjā), of the most relevant Buddhist teachings (Villamor 2023a). This, reminiscent of the influence of Upaniṣadic thought in Buddhism reflect the Sāriputta’s interpretation on that emancipation is ñāṇa,33 and that what should be done34 is to live embracing (vusita) the practice (brahmacariya)35 of the religious movement founded by the Buddha, a leader who represented that—the sublime spiritual state equated to Brahma(n)—which was referred to as brahmabhūta (MN 1.348, 412; MN 2.162; AN 2.211).

If many of the Buddha’s teachings were transmitted,36 as I am suggesting in this paper, under a significant interpretation influenced by the Upaniṣadic soteriology (BṛU 6.2,15), one would expect that many of the metaphors37 he introduced from the Brahmanical context would have been understood orthodoxically, not as the Buddha pretended. In fact, having lived (vusita) the ideal way of living (as a follower of Buddha) (brahmacariya),38 was seen as a fundamental factor among those who expressed their realized final emancipation39. The very same expression (vusitabrahmacariya) was employed to assert the supremacy of the Buddha and praise him as the one who has the ‘eye’ of omniscience (samantacakkhu).40 The key to understanding most of the eulogizing expressions for the Buddha, and many other references, such as those in which it is said that the mastery of brahmacariya or brahmavihāra leads to rebirth in the realm of Brahmā41, is the same: that certain Buddhists, with Brahminical criteria, established doctrinal hegemony in the way that Buddhism was understood under the influence of Upaniṣadic soteriology42.

Previous scholarship has pointed out that Sāriputta teaches the Brahmin Dhanañjāni when they met (Ellis 2021, pp. 85–86). However, it was not adequately discussed why Sāriputta would have preferred to instruct that Brahmin in a religious practice that led him to the goal of rebirth in Brahmaloka, criticized in the Pāli version as a lower realm. The actual form of this Buddhist scripture in the Canon, as usual, seems to be composed of various old and new layers. This is evident from the fact that its Chinese parallel does not reflect any critical view regarding the fusion with Brahma(n), whereas it records that Sāriputta taught Dhanañjāni the practice of the brahmavihāras as the same goal of Upaniṣadic soteriology.43

In MN 2.194, the practice of the four brahmavihāras is presented as the path leading to the Brahmaloka, preached by Sāriputta, who is, reporting it to the Buddha. In MN 2.196, despite the Buddha’s seemingly critical attitude towards Sāriputta’s explanation of ‘union with Brahma(n)’, Sāriputta, nevertheless affirms the legitimacy of seeking such a union. After the Buddha confirms to Sāriputta that: ‘Then, after death, Sāriputta, the Brahmin Dhanañjāni has been reborn in the realm of Brahma(n)’ (Kālakato ca, Sāriputta, Dhānañjāni brāhmaṇo Brahmalokañ ca uppanno ti), he questions Sāriputta, expressing doubt as to why he ‘rose from his seat and established the Brahmin Dhanañjāni in the inferior Brahmaloka when there was a higher goal to be attained’ (Eso, bhikkhave, Sāriputto Dhānañjāniṃ brāhmaṇaṃ sati uttarikaraṇīye hīne Brahmaloke patiṭṭhāpetvā uṭṭhāy’ āsanā pakkanto ti MN 2.195). Sāriputta replies that he chose to teach the Vedic Brahmin Dhanañjāni the ‘path to Brahman companionship’ (Yannūnāhaṃ Dhānañjānissa brāhmaṇassa Brahmānaṃ sahavyatāya maggaṃ deseyyan ti MN 2.196) because this Vedic Brahmin was ‘inclined towards that realm’ (brahmalokādhimuttā). This text offers insight into the different historical backgrounds within the transmission of the Pāli Canon. It raises the possibility that influential Buddhist figures from Brahmin backgrounds, such as Sāriputta, from an early period, as well as many of his Brahmin followers might have determined how the metaphorical teachings of the Buddha were interpreted for an external goal: a ‘path of union with Brahma(n)’. Furthermore, the underestimation of Brahmaloka as a ‘lower spiritual realm’ in the Canon (uttari appaṭivijjhanto brahmalokūpago hoti AN 4.150, 5.341; Vin 5.140; uttarikaraṇīye hīne brahmaloke MN 2.195) seems to have been influenced by the authoritative interpretations on the brahmavihāras by Buddhaghosa (Vism 305), who established a clear distinction between arhantship and Brahmaloka (Uttarim appaṭivijjhanto ti mettāsamāpattito uttariṃ arahattaṃ adhigantuṃ asakkonto, ito cavitvā suttappabuddho viya brahmalokaṃ upapajjatī ti. Vism 314). The idea that Brahmaloka is not related to arhantship would not have needed to be discussed by Buddhists,44 if it had not previously been believed that Brahmaloka was the spiritual realm attained by the most enlightened Buddhist monks. The discrediting of Brahmaloka by Buddhaghosa indicates the earlier Brahminical influence on the transmission of Indian Buddhism, as I argue in this paper.

This story records the Buddha admonishing Sāriputta for his discourse linking the practice of the four brahmavihāras with rebirth in Brahmaloka, understanding it literally as Brahmins did,45 as their expected outer world, pointed out by the characteristic metaphysical formula that fashions the Buddha’s psychic powers to be able to see the chain of rebirth (kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā) (cf.n 29, 38). This is particularly noteworthy if we consider that the same formula and the path to becoming one with Brahma(n) (brahmalokasahabyatāya) (AN 4.103), were specifically mentioned by the Buddha as the religious practices followed by Vedic Brahmin masters in the past (Mūgapakkha, Aranemi, Kuddālaka, Hatthipāla, Jotipāla (AN 3.371)), which were not referred to as the same goal he taught, but, as he repeatedly rejected: their soteriology.46 In short, this faint trace within the scripture succinctly revives the historical background in which Sāriputta, as many other converted Brahmins, closely associated with the time of the Buddha, may have constructed a path influenced by Brahmanical thought, a goal reminiscent of Upaniṣadic ideas.

4. Attaining Brahma(n): The Buddha as Brahmā, and Dismissing It

Ānanda appears to have received several instructions from Sāriputta regarding abstract concepts of nothingness and consciousness,47 as outlined in the meditation techniques of Brahmanism (Wynne 2007, pp. 11–23), and the way in which he explained the consciousness that recalls when he attained nirvāṇa (bhavanirodho nibbānan [ti] saññī ca panāhaṃ āvuso tasmiṃ samaye ahosin AN 5.9–10). Echoes that again remind us of the Upaniṣadic view of liberation. These teachings were given by Sāriputta to Buddhist renunciants too (AN 5.357). The formula of finalizing Buddhist religious practice (brahmacariya) was the classical way of presenting the success of arhantship48 as the highest (seṭṭha)49 spiritual state.50 The way the Buddha referenced this can be seen as the result of how his followers understood the transmission of knowledge from him. After all, he was for them the greatest Brahmin,51 the ultimate embodiment of sacred knowledge for liberation. As discussed above, it is likely that renowned Brahmins and their direct followers who had converted to Buddhism, established the authoritative framework based on their interpretation, which involved transmitting liberation in terms of Brahmanical thought. That final state was referred to as overcoming (ati-) the final (anta): the ‘absolute’ (accanta) goal, the peaceful overcoming state (accantayogakkhemin) for describing Buddhist practitioners (accantabrahmacārin)—not merely anyone in the Buddhist community,52 but those who are said to have truly mastered brahmacariya: for Buddhists, the teachings of the Buddha. About this state of purification, apparently told from the Buddha to Indra in the so-called ‘Indra questions’, are bhikkhus with the right conditions53 (we can guess that probably those whom the Buddhist tradition remembers as the most venerable, as, for example, Moggallāna) who are said to have attained such a state.54

The conviction that the Buddha’s realization of the ultimate truth qualifies him as the knower of Bráhman—and thereby justifies his praising as brahmabhūta—was communicated to Ānanda (AN 5.226), likely by a senior Buddhist renunciant.55 This renunciant seem to have encouraged Ānanda to classify the teachings of their master (vibhajatāyasmā Ānando ti SN 4.94) as follows:

Addhāvuso Ānanda Bhagavā jānaṃ jānāti passam passati. cakkhubhūto ñāṇabhūto dhammabhūto brahmabhūto (…)

SN 4.95

Indeed, friend Ānanda, knowing, the Blessed One knows; seeing, [he] sees. [He] is the Eye, [he] is Wisdom, [he] is the Dharma, he is Brahma(n).56

I agree with Neri and Pontillo (2014, p. 156) in that the spiritual state referred to by Buddhists as brahmabhūta, employed to refer to the Buddha and the arhants (Bhattacharya 1973, p. 73; Neri and Pontillo 2016, p. 145), was marginalized in orthodox literature later, as a counterattack that stigmatized and probably established the view which, as I argue, requires an early interpretation of Buddhism as a path to the realization of Brahma(n). The criticism (McGovern 2012, p. 9) and parody (Gombrich 2001, pp. 96–98) around Brahmā developed not from the beginning of Buddhism, but later, when social importance no longer dictated necessity and Buddhists could allow themselves to distinguish the Buddha from Brahmā. The Pāli stories cited in these earlier studies deny the eternity of Brahmanical thought by insisting that the Buddha fully understands the universal conscience (Bakassa brahmuno cetasā cetoparivitakkamaññāya MN 1.326), because, it is said he affirmed: ‘I (really) see that, you do not’ (tvaṃ na jānāsi na passasi, tamahaṃ jānāmi passāmi), ‘I know more than you’ (atha kho ahameva tayā bhiyyo (MN 1.329). The point being discussed here is that the Buddha’s wisdom is superior to Brahmā’s, which is a clear allusion to Upaniṣadic influence, especially in the very idea of a more insightful knowledge57 as the path to realize ultimate reality. The Chinese āgama version of the MN 1.326 clearly mentions the realm of Brahmaloka as the ‘highest (最上 = seṭṭha) destination’ (彼身壞命終必生最上尊梵天中 T26.1.547b20-23), while the discussion of the Pāli Canon refers to Brahmaloka only as the place where the Buddha and Brahmā dialogue about a lower rebirth stratum, described by the odd expression of pāṇupacchedā (MN 1.327) (Brahmagarahakā Brahmajigucchakā, te kāyassa bhedā pāṇupacchedā hīne kāye patiṭṭhitā). Furthermore, the sutta on the mendicant Kevaṭṭa, for its part, presents this bhikkhu, in front of the Buddha, not disappearing from but appearing in Brahmaloka (evam eva Brahmaloke antarahito mama purato pātur ahosi DN 1.222) and also repeats the idea that the Buddha knew what Brahmā was thinking from the very beginning and denied his abilities as Vanquisher Unvanquished (abhibhū anabhibhūto DN 3.29–30). Buddhists praised the Buddha by adapting precisely the same titles and praised the Buddha in the same terms as the ancient Brahmanical archetype of the god-hero, represented by Indra and Brahmā. The negotiation of the figure of the Buddha in this way can be seen in the opening section of the Canon58 (Aham asmi Brahmā Mahābrahmā59 abhibhū anabhibhūto {aññadatthu} daso vasavatti issaro DN 1.18, DN 1.221); examples that must precede the attempt to distinguish the Buddha from60 a discredited image of Brahmā (3) negation). The same formula is repeated when the Buddha was questioned, and he is said to have affirmed that he knew the origin of the universe (aggaññañ cāhaṃ Bhaggava pajānāmi DN 3.28).

His figure was first compared to Brahmā61 because of the need to promote Buddhism through the figure of the Vedic god.62 The rejection of this view implies a later imperative to relegate Brahmā as (although a celestial being, one still attached to saṃsāra) and to separate his image from the Buddha, probably in a later transmission of Buddhism, when the myths about the Buddha allowed Buddhists to do so. This contradiction preserved in the Canon and the later attempts to correct it reflect the peculiarity of the early oral transmission of Buddhism, but it is not so unremarkable as to be merely an oversight.

Before the reformatory attempts to disregard Brahmā (I have discussed above), the figure of the Vedic god was introduced in Buddhist narratives as a Buddhist monk who put his robe over his shoulder (Brahmā sahampati ekaṃsam uttarāsaṅgaṃ), was in fact described as a disciple of a previous buddha (Kassape sammāsambuddhe brahmacariyam acariṃ), on account of which he was reborn in Brahmaloka (kāyassa bhedā param maraṇā sugatim brahmalokam upapanno SN 5.233). This supports the idea that Brahmā and the Buddha can interact (MN 1.458, SN 5.168), in the same characteristic way as in the famous story of SN 1.137, when it is said that Brahmā prostrates himself before the Buddha. In fact, if we read the Pāli source correctly, we can see how it says that Brahmā does not ‘disappear’ from (abl.)63 Brahmaloka, but appears in the realm (loc.) where, as Chinese translators narrated,64 he and the Buddha’s intention were interpreted to be connected, by Indian Buddhists.

The Divinity knew what the Buddha was thinking (…) In this very way, [because of that], he appeared in the Brahmaloka and became visible to the Buddha.65

It is not difficult to see that the Buddha was assumed to be aware of the origin of the universe (aggañña) (AN 3.29). This thought of the Buddhists spread based on Brahmanical ideology, specifically from the (neutral)66 concept of Bráhman of the ancient Upaniṣads,67 and then seems to have given way to the claim that the Buddha is omniscient,68 and why the figure of the Buddha is negotiated as Brahmán. This is why it is described that the Buddha has expressed that he could read Brahmā’s conscience69 (AN 4.88, AN 4.104). Among many examples of this, the integration of these ideas is evident in Buddhist scriptures where Brahmā Sahampati pays homage at the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, expressed again in the locative (Parinibbute Bhagavati saha parinibbānā Brahmā sahampati (SN 1.158, DN 2.157)). The supreme knowledge I am discussing in this paper is Bráhman, the neuter principle,70 as indeed Buddhists claimed that the Buddha ‘walked the Brahma(n) path’71 (brahmacariyaṃ acariṃ SN 5.233), which for Indian Buddhists seems to have been meant to have realized Bráhman.72 This inner phenomenon that the Buddha is said to have experienced, was explained by the ideas of ‘knowing’ and ‘seeing’, the very same ones that that gnosis represented for Vedic Brahmins (Evam etam Bhagavā evam etaṃ Sugata aham etaṃ jānāmi aham etam passāmi SN 5.233). Buddhists believed and proclaimed that the Buddha was the highest among Brahmins (Levman 2021, p. 16), the true Brahmin,73 the one who truly understood the ultimate reality that the Vedic seers of the past could not see (na ’tthi koci brāhmaṇaṃ ekabrāhmaṇo pi yo evam āha: Aham etaṃ jānāmi, aham etaṃ passāmi: idam eva saccaṃ mogham aññan ti MN 2.169–70). Hence, the liberation of the Buddha (Bhagavā parinibbāyi) was understood as his supreme achievement in understanding (thus becoming)74 Bráhman: his adherence to Truth, as the Vedic Brahmins also expected the Buddha, to know (DN 1.248–49, MN 2.205).75 Given this, we can understand how and why the ideas found in the Pāli Canon developed under the influence of Brahminical thought.76 The mystical experience of nirvāṇa77 was expressed78 (as parinibbāyati) by remembering the liberating yoga of Upaniṣadic thought (Bhattacharya 1973, p. 103). Wynne (2018, p. 104) has suggested that Chinese Buddhists translated this as ‘Brahmin(ical) 梵志 parinirvāṇa 般涅槃’ (EĀ-Chi 28.3, T125(2)650c2). However, this Chinese interpretation is particularly difficult to find. Instead, in many scriptures of the Chinese āgamas, the formula of nirvāṇa as overcoming the chain of rebirth by completing brahmacariya79 is clearly referred to as the locus classicus that confirms that accomplishment as the realization of ‘[completely] standing oneself in the supreme status of Brahma(n)’ (梵行已立).80 The passage corresponding to the above allusion of 梵志般涅槃 records an explanation in the Buddha’s words about one who is a Brahmin81 at attaining nirvāṇa. This claim of who should be regarded as a true Brahmin, sounds like the discourse formulated by Jains and Buddhists (McGovern 2018) to praise their religious founders as the most authentic Brahmin representatives. In fact, the very same idea82 is stated as the discourse of other deities, who valued the Buddha as testifying of the vision83 of the ‘liberated Brahmin’ (brāhmaṇaṃ parinibbutaṃ)84; words told to be approved by the Buddha (SN 1.1, 54). This suggests the reason why Buddhists wanted to remember the Buddha as Brahmin85 in passages of the Vinaya, when his image is negotiated among the Vedic Brahmins of Verañja, and Brahmā prostrates at his feet.86 It seems that this story, like many other Buddhist stories, was written to praise the Buddha. There is a passage in the Canon, which expresses that even following the Buddha and practising the ‘unsurpassed brahmacariya’, could result in rebirth in a ‘lower’ place.87 If we consider this as evidence for saying that the goal for Buddhists was not referred to as being in accordance with the idea of being (with) Brahma(n), we must avoid that it was transmitted from India into Chinese words also attributed to the Buddha explaining in the same terms how he completed his religious practice (brahmacarya), allusions that served to define arhantship.88

We have sufficient evidence to consider that Buddhist practice, referred to as brahmacariya with the aim of attaining nirvāṇa,89 was conceptualized in a way that paralleled Brahmanical thought.90 This is evident in the fact that in many passages, the Buddhist usage of brahmacariya means, rather than celibacy,91 the wisdom transmitted within the lineage of the Buddha’s followers. This can be seen in verses in which the same advocacy was claimed, in words attributed to Sāriputta, referring to brahmacariya as the religious practice of Buddhism, with the concern of its continuity and correct transmission (‘So that this spiritual path may endure perpetually’ (yathayidaṃ brahmacariyaṃ addhaniyaṃ assa ciraṭṭhitikaṃ 3.127) (same sentence at DN 2.120, DN 3.211, DN 3.271, etc.); ‘[they] proclaim the purified spiritual path’ (parisuddhaṃ brahmacariyaṃ abhivadanti DN 3.267). Sāriputta seems to have distinguished brahmacariya as the Buddhist true teachings leading to the mental state of ‘nothingness’ (ākiñcañña) as well as ‘neither consciousness nor unconsciousness’ (nevasaññānāsaññā) (DN 3.263). These are some of the terms in which was conceptualized the ultimate truth (of course, ātman = Bráhman) by Vedic Brahmins in the early Upaniṣads (Wynne 2007, p. 37). The influence of the Upaniṣadic soteriology as the goal of Buddhist renunciants can be seen also in this discourse, which in fact seems to be a ratification of portraying Buddhism as path that does not lead to rebirth with gods (devayāna) (tapena vā brahmacariyena vā devo vā bhavissāmi devaññataro DN 3.239).92 Buddhist renunciates expected to achieve the ‘unsurpassed state of realization Bráhman’, the spiritual stage associated with those who achieved liberation and were described as arhants.93 Likewise, the use of the demonstrative of ‘that’ (tat) in the thought of the early Upaniṣads (Bhattacharya 1973, p. 71), which meant much more than merely an object, but seeing reality in the most transcendental way imaginable. Buddhists emphasized that doing what should be done derives in seeing (diṭṭheva)94 the supreme state of realization: the end of suffering, not in a lower realm95 of existence. This is plausible in that this abstraction from suffering of an arhant96 who is said to have realized the end of his religious practice (brahmacariyapariyosānaṃ diṭṭheva dhamme sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā upasampajja vihāsi DN 1.176, DN 1.202, DN 2.153, etc.) was also presented as supreme liberation (anuttaraṃ vimuttiṃ), supposedly learned by Ānanda in a passage that appeared in the middle of the context of the Former Buddhas97 (AN 3.218–19). What I insist on arguing is that this idea developed among Buddhist renunciants, probably because it resonated more empathically in their hearts, under the influence of Upaniṣadic soteriology, which marked a tendency in the way Buddhism was transmitted.

5. Conclusions

Buddhist followers, especially the Buddha’s direct disciples, were responsible not only for transmitting his teachings but also for remembering and thus shaping the way they were transmitted. The Canon, of course, is not a direct recording that completely reflects what occurred during the Buddha’s lifetime. Rather, it was the result of a process of reconstructing (Bucknell 2022) and interpreting the teachings passed on by his disciples, who somehow managed to memorize them. As I have discussed in this paper, the legitimization of the Buddha as the supreme religious leader of all time, was constantly defined and negotiated by conceptualizing his figure in the context of Brahmanism. The concepts and terminology reviewed in this article were not unknown among Buddhists, nor were they unfamiliar in the context of educated Vedic Brahmins, who sought liberation through the realization of Bráhman. My thesis is that those terms have been preserved in the Canon, probably because they were introduced from early on, some of them as metaphors, by the Buddha, which many of them became a significant part of the Brahminical interpretative framework established by the most authoritative disciples of the Buddha: Sāriputta, Moggallāna, (Mahā)kassapa and many other followers, of Brahminical origin. I have argued why the Buddha and the arhants were described as the actual knowers of Bráhman98 (Brahmabhūta, tad anuttaraṃ brahmacariyapariyosānaṃ, seṭṭha, etc.) and furthermore, why terms such as brahmavihāra and brahmacariya were traditionally interpreted as part of the Buddhist practices aimed at rebirth in Brahmaloka. This Brahminical interpretation, was not just a minor discourse among some Buddhist circles. It plausibly influenced the portrayal of the Buddha and his teachings, becoming one of the most significant aspects of how Buddhism was transmitted99, as preserved in many Indian and Chinese texts, before Buddhaghosa, declined Brahmaloka as arhantship. Significant aspects, such as that (1) the Buddha was praised as Brahmā, the supreme Brahmin, and that (2) Bráhman, the neuter principle, was understood as the experience of achieving nirvāṇa, were transmitted in the Chinese āgamas as part of the oral tradition inherited from Indian Buddhism, which at least100, had to have developed before the Chinese translations discussed in this article, which, dated to have been composed between 3 and 5 CE. Therefore, we will need to admit the possibility that the development of this thought predates the efforts to discredit Brahminism, which, although of uncertain date, we can assume probably developed as part of the later Pāli orthodoxy.101 In future surveys I will bring light on whether my thesis—that from an early date the Buddha’s followers interpreted and transmitted their master’s teachings in the light of Upaniṣadic soteriology—can be seen also in the commentaries of the Canon and other Buddhist schools of the northern transmission.

My arguments in this paper offer a compelling reinterpretation of not how Buddhism began from the teachings of the Buddha,102 but how many of his significant teachings were transmitted, as an evolving reformulation of Brahmanical thought, critically negotiated in different manners over time. The disciples of the Buddha were claimed to be the authentic Brahmins103 who followed the lineage of the legitimate knower of Bráhman: the Buddha. Buddhaghosa, the greatest Theravādin scholar, who translated from the Sinhalese commentaries to Pāli, and edited many ancient ideas from Indian Buddhism, regarded, obviously, the Buddha as the ‘highest Brahmin’, the one who ‘taught the Brahmavihāras’ (Brahmuttamena kathite brahmavihāre) (Vism 317). Furthermore, he explained the assumption of Indian Buddhists that I am claiming in this paper, that the Buddha was the very knower of Bráhman, the absolute neuter principle taught in the Upaniṣads, that inspired the belief104 in his omniscience (cf.n. 70).

Many of the followers of the Buddha situated his figure within the Brahminical religious context with this underlying premise, and thus, unified first him with the image of the Vedic god Brahmā, in their pursuit to represent the Buddha as the supreme brāhmaṇa. Significant figures in Buddhist tradition, from an early period, seem to have established the Brahmanical authority I am claiming in this paper, in which they interpreted the teachings of the Buddha as the path to realizing Bráhman. This criterion clearly seems to have influenced the transmission of Indian Buddhism, as many Chinese translations corroborate. Scholars of the Canon tradition seem to have attempted to erase and blur the Brahmanical interpretation that I have discussed in this article to be the significant theoretical framework from which Indian Buddhism was transmitted. Some of them denied the ontology of the Upaniṣads, adding layers of criticism to Brahmanical thought, and making this important aspect of the history of Indian Buddhism hidden for centuries. However, it is still uncertain, the period of such a reform, and if we can say that there was, in the transmission of Buddhism, a complete reformatory campaign against Brahmanical thought.