The Significance of War Allegories in the Pāli Canon

Abstract

Previous scholarship has explored the Buddhist perspective on war and peace in Early Buddhism, offering valuable insights into Buddhist attitudes toward war. However, the specific ways in which warriors were persuaded through arguments to convert to Buddhism, and the prevalence of warfare-related allusions in Buddhist teachings, are still a topic underexplored that has not received sufficient attention in previous scholarship. This study examines the significance of references to the war context in the Pāli Canon. Comparing it with Brahmanical prose and Jain scriptures and contrasting the transmission of Buddhist thought into the Chinese language, this study demonstrates the narratives on the spiritual contest and the Buddhist warriors’ proclamation of Brahminical terms and ideals for royal patronage. This article discusses the significance of the relationship between the war context in the Nikāyas and the historical implications of incorporating the ideals and archetypes of Aryan warriors into Buddhist teachings.

1. Introduction

Previous scholarship has approached the Buddhist perspective on war (Demiéville, 1957, 2010; Tada, 2023) [1,2,3] and peace in Early Buddhism (Hosoda, 2024; Salomon, 2007; Schmithausen, 1999, 2014) [4,5,6,7]. These studies have provided insights into Buddhist attitudes towards war and have mainly analyzed the historical context of allusions and terms related to warfare at the time. It is not difficult to see that the Buddha’s teachings do not encourage fighting anyone other than oneself1, and why the most widespread practice implicit in warfare, killing, is rejected as a primary ethical rule among Buddhists (Schmithausen, 1999, p. 45; 2014, p. 42) [6,7]. Sugiki (2020) [9] discussed the role of Buddhism in ancient South Asian societies and reviewed the methods implemented in Buddhist teachings to prevent warriors from falling into potential bad karma by providing them with various methods2 to refrain from killing. In addition, the same scholar discussed the ways to avoid violating the precept of not hurting, as explained in other earlier Indian Buddhist scriptures (Sugiki, 2021) [11]. However, the details of whether warriors were persuaded by argument and why they converted to Buddhism are not well documented. It is quite easy to find in the Canon references to allegories and many titles that evoke an intimate relationship between Buddhist thought and the warrior culture. Those who have achieved liberation are regarded with various titles related to warfare. The leading figures in Buddhism are referred to as ‘heroes, conquerors in war’ (vīra vijitasaṅgāma DN ii 39.; MN i 169; SN i 137), and Buddhist practitioners are metaphorically defined as ‘professional warriors’ (yodhājīva AN i 284, ii 170). Many of the Buddha’s exhortations, as well as his followers’ interpretations of them3, show the use of terms clearly drawn from the context of war. These narratological aspects have not received the same interest from previous scholars. This study4 compares principally the references to the war context in the Nikāyas5, focusing on the similar terms and concepts between Buddhist thought and the ṚgVeda (RV)6. The similarities in terminology about war portrayed in the Jain and Buddhist Canons, as long as in Brāhmaṇa prose7 or the posterior Sanskrit epic literature, portray philosophical and historical implications of how ascetic traditions inverted ideas from Brahmanism. In this paper, I will focus on the development of Buddhist thought, with special attention to the significance of war allegories, and I will discuss how the warrior ideals delineated in Buddhist and Jain scriptures reflect not only the interaction of politics and religion8, but the interaction of the social and historical9 context of the Brahminized Aryan warrior culture of northwestern India, as well as a complex framework of readaptation under the influence of the Vrātya Brahmanical culture within the religious developments in the primordial non-Vedic region of Magadha (Bronkhorst, 2007; 2011, pp. 27–28; Choudhary, 1964, p. 147) [20,21,22].

1.1. The Warrior Culture and Buddhism

The history of classical India has been one of constant conflict among kingdoms (Schmithausen, 2014, p. 35) [7]. Some texts in the Canon refer, through the Buddha’s words, to the existence of ‘sixteen great kingdoms’: Aṅga, Magadha, Kāsi, Kosala, Vajji, Malla, Cetī, Vaccha, Kuru, Pañcāla, Maccha, Sūrasena, Assaka, Avanti, Gandhāra and Kamboja (AN i 206, iv 252–258)10. The Buddha normally did not advise kings from a political or social perspective11, but for individual spiritual liberation (Schmithausen, 1999, p. 51) [6]. The conversion to Buddhism of powerful kings such as Ajātasattu12 (Magadha) and Pasenadi13 (Kosala) is not only described in the early Buddhist scriptures but also corroborated by many legends recorded in ancient inscriptions (Nakamura, 2021, p. 147) [27].

The tradition of the Canon records, as the ethical (sīla) teachings of the Buddha14, to abstain (paṭivirata) from participating in a battlefield (uyyodhika), visiting shows (visūkadassana), seeing an army (anīkadassana), a military parade (balagga), from an array of troops (senābyūha), and also from many other fighting (yuddha) practices common at his time (DN i 6). The Buddha, after being recommended as the most qualified advisor to the king of Magadha, Ajātasattu, explains his concern (DN ii 14) and obvious reluctance to refer to warfare (yuddhakathā), military affairs (senākathā) (DN i 50), or even discussing rulers’ affairs (rājakathā), among other topics that do not lead to liberation, repeatedly defined in his words, as ‘various kinds of engaged speech proper to beasts’ (anekavihitaṃ tiracchānakathaṃ) (DN i 178–179, AN v 129, MN i 513, ii 1, 23–30). Other lines say that the Buddha explains the negative consequences of being involved in warfare (Schmithausen, 1999, p. 48) [6] and refutes as a false view (micchādiṭṭhi) the common belief15 among warriors who approached him that rebirth in heaven is possible after dying in battle (SN iv 307–311) (Schmithausen 2014, p. 45) [7]. However, on the other hand, it is not easy to find a sermon in the Canon in which the Buddha directly advises a king to refrain from war or even condemns it (Ibid., 2014, p. 42) [7]. Buddhist renunciants abandon any kind of activity or involvement in social movements. This monastic attitude may also have an impact on the position of the Buddha and his followers against war. Regarding war, the Buddha was rather an external observer than a warning counsellor (Tada, 2023, p. 158) [3]16. The Buddha’s main concern was to protect his followers and nuns from the direct reprisals and collateral damage of war (Pandita, 2011, p. 139) [30]. This concern seems to have really troubled the Buddha. The suggestions about converting warriors to Buddhism are quite revealing in this regard. Previous studies explain that the Buddha dealt with this matter by forbidding the ordination of royal warriors associated with armies to prevent them from committing acts of violence against the saṅgha (Sugiki, 2020: 5) [9].

Aristocrats who were not officially part of a royal army, as well as other warriors who gave up their warrior status17, entered the Buddhist community18. Scholars agree that the main supporters of Early Buddhism belonged to the warrior class (Norman, 1995, p. 110; Deshpande, 1994, p. 92) [31,32] and that Jainism and Buddhism share this cultural background from which they emerged with the support of warriors from the northeastern region of Magadha (Nakamura, 2021, p. 25) [27]. The assimilation of many terms from the warrior context, shared between Buddhism and Jainism, confirms this background. Their negation of violence does not fully explain why these traditions, as the Buddha himself seems to have done, introduced metaphorical references from the Vedic context to encourage the inner struggle for one’s liberation. This process may have involved the negotiation and transformation of many terms from the Brahmanical warrior culture, which could be attributed to the reinterpretation of warrior concepts and ideals into Buddhist concerns.

1.2. The Buddha’s Teachings and Metaphors on War

There are many metaphors in the Buddhist texts that could be attributed to the Buddha’s discourses, since he had a clear preference for metaphors over literal teaching (Gombrich, 2006, pp. 21–26) [33]. He usually introduced this means19 in a dialogue with the ideas and concepts of other philosophers of his time to explain his teachings (Ibid., 42). It is easy to see that many passages in the Canon contain references to victory in battle, in the sense of achieving spiritual liberation.

The texts of the Brahmajālasutta and the Sāmaññaphalasutta20, initially arranged in the Canon as the first of the Theravādin tradition, do not introduce the word saṅgāma to denote a review of matters relating to literal warfare21. Instead, the term yuddha is employed22. The colophon of DN 1 mentions that the Buddha was encouraged ‘to be remembered as the conqueror of the higher war’ (anuttaro saṅgāmavijayo ti pi naṃ dhārehīti DN i 46). The parabolic usage of the term saṅgāma in both Jain and Buddhist thought provides significant indications that this term was employed with a religious connotation within the cultural context of Magadha. The following examples are among the most characteristic.

Dhp 103 (von Hinüber & Norman, 1995, p. 29)

yo sahassaṃ sahassena saṅgāme mānuse jine23, ekañ ca jeyya-m-attānaṃ sa ve saṅgāmajuttamo24.

One may be a conqueror in battle against a thousand men, a thousand [times]. [But] who has conquered himself is the best victor of the [spiritual] battle.

Parallel verses to Dhp 103 have been identified in Jainism, where the allusions to war and its conquest expose a common cultural substratum of meditating on an inner battle, an important development in the religious thought of Indian society25, to which Jain26 and Buddhist practitioners interacted27, and aspired to contribute significantly. Spiritual heroism with an empathetic focus on martial values was widely esteemed in ancient Indian culture, as can also be seen among the Jains (Dundas, 2002, p. 17) [29]. The parallelism in the thought and wording of both, Buddhist and Jain religious traditions concerning the concept of ‘victory’ (jaya) in an ascetic sense, and the ideal of Jainism as ‘victorious or conqueror’ (jaina < jina), is particularly noteworthy (jo sahassaṃ sahassāṇaṃ saṃgāme dujjae jiṇe, egaṃ jiṇejja appāṇaṃ esa se paramo jao Utt 9.34; yaḥ sahasraṃ sahasrāṇām saṃgrame dviṣatāṃ jayet, yas c’ ātmānaṃ jayed ekaṃ saṃgrāmo durjayaḥ sa vai UV 23.3) (Hosoda, 2024, p. 68) [4]. For our analysis, it is important to note that the Jain version of this popular aphorism explicitly states that ‘war’ is the hardest one to win. Curiously, the same statement is referred to in the Jain text of Uttaradhyāyanasūtra (Utt). Among its passages, the definition of being a ‘warrior’ (tao gacchasi khattiyā) in negotiation with Brahmanical thought, specifically with the image of the Lord of the Devas (devindaṃ iṇam abbavī Utt 9.33), explained in the previous lines of the same teaching, portrays the attempt of Jain thinkers to convert the image of Indra28 and appropriate it for their ethical teachings (jo sahassaṃ sahassāṇaṃ saṃgāme dujjae jiṇe, egaṃ jiṇejja appāṇaṃ esa se paramo jao Utt 9.34) (Charpentier, 1922, p. 98). The following lines demonstrate clearly that the interest of these stanzas in Jain thought was to refer metaphorically to the final emancipation from rebirth.

Utt 9.35‒36 (Ibid., 98–99)

appāṇam eva jujjhāhi kiṃ te jujjheṇa bajjhao, appaṇām evam appāṇaṃ jaittā29 suham ehae. paṃcindiyāṇi kohaṃ māṇaṃ māyaṃ taheva lohaṃ ca, dujjayaṃ ceva appāṇaṃ savvaṃ appe jie jiyaṃ.

Fight only against yourself! Why do you want to fight others? By conquering oneself, and certainly oneself, one attains true happiness. The five senses, anger, pride, delusion, and greed are certainly [the most] difficult to confront. [But when you] conquer this battle, everything will be conquered30.

We also have evidence in the Buddhist Canon when the Buddha is expressing the same point in a similar way, defining the religious goal for his followers as ‘the most difficult battle to conquer’ (saṅgāmaṃ jeti dujjayaṃ SN i 162; Th 442).

This characteristic passage may illustrate the Buddha’s metaphorical approach, which was his common, instructive way of teaching (Gombrich, 2006, p. 42; 2013, p. 60, 88, 193) [33,43], that survived not only in the Nikāyas, but in many Chinese and other Buddhist scriptures as words of the Buddha. This metaphor is not pretending to directly reach the grant of powerful rulers, but consistency in the inner religious practices of Buddhist renunciants. It is hard to believe that he could not have inverted the tradition of war, adopting the established values of warriors—not literally, but metaphorically—as instructions for achieving nibbāna. In fact, there are passages in which he clearly uses war allegories to illustrate a spiritual battle (SN i 98). The lines of this text recall how the Buddha preached to King Pasenadi of the powerful neighboring kingdom of Kosala, about the importance of having ‘five virtues’ (Katamehi pañcahaṅgehi samannāgato), regardless of one’s lineage (cf.n. 116):

SN i 99

Taṃ kiṃ maññasi mahārāja? idha tyassa yuddhaṃ paccupaṭṭhitaṃ saṅgāmo samupabyūḷho. atha āgaccheyya khattiyakumāro susikkhito katahattho katayoggo katūpāsano abhīru acchambhī anutrāsī apalāyī (…)

What do you think, Oh great king? Imagine a war has arisen and you are about to fight in a battle, and a young warrior prince comes to you. He is well-learned, skillful, well-trained, fearless, determined, shows no fear and does not flee (…).

One can see how the Buddha’s metaphorical use of ‘war’ (saṅgāma) was introduced from the warfare context (MN i 86) by appropriating the common vocabulary that mention the literal conquest (vijitasaṅgāmo) on the battlefield (uyyodhikā) of kings who converted to Buddhism (King Pasenadi AN v 65) and from the teachings that the Buddha expressed to his followers through parables involving warfare (to King Pacetana AN i 111).

It is interesting that the term saṃgrāma does not appear to have been mentioned by the seers who composed the RV. The reliable interest in winning in war was instead associated with expressions about fighting (√ yudh). In several Brāhmaṇas, however, the term saṃgrāma seems to be associated with a literal fight, in the sense of a confrontation to be won if blessed by Brahmanical rituals, such as chanting (JB I.92, 107, ŚBM XIII.4.3), among other sacrifices (ŚBM I.5.3, GB II.1.18). Moreover, several passages of the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (ŚB) refer to conquest (ájayat) in battle (saṃgrāma) in a religious context. This is expressed through the effectiveness of the mystical power of recitation, referred to as the ‘splendor of Brāhman’ (brahmavarcasá), which becomes available when a Brahmin or Kṣatriya singer (kṣatrá-) plays the lute correctly. This passage reflects the traditional division of roles in Vedic society, where spiritual authority belongs to the Brahmins and martial power to the Kṣatriyas31. The previous descriptions of this passage (ŚBM XIII.1.5.4) outline the roles of each social group. Singing during the day is the responsibility of the Brahmins, while the Kṣatriyas should sing at night. Therefore, it is recommended that the Brahmins sing and play during the day and the Kṣatriyas do so at night. Their respective roles are clearly defined. The religious merit of performing rituals and offering rewards to priests (iṣṭāpūrta)32 was assigned to the Brahmin, while bravery (vīrya) characterized the Kṣatriya, for whom the attainment of kingship is presented as their principal role (ŚBM XIII.1.5.6, see below). This, as we can surmise, reflects the intrinsic relationship between Brahmins and Warriors and the claim of Brahmins’ ability to master (the power of chanting) Bráhman. This, as we may infer, reflects the intrinsic relationship between Brahmins and warriors and their shared claim of their mastery of Bráhman. Such mastery and alliance were fundamentally tied to the success of the literal battles that the Aryan clans desired to win with their blessings.

ŚBM XIII.1.5.5 (Weber, 1964, p. 961)

yád ubháu náktam, ápāsmād brahmavarcasáṃ krāmet. kṣatrásya vā́ etád rūpáṃ yád rā́trir. ná vái kṣatré brahmavarcasáṃ ramata íti. dívā brāhmaṇó gā́yati náktaṃ rājanyàs. tátho hāsya bráhmaṇā ca kṣatréṇa cobhayátaḥ śrī́ḥ párigr̥hītā bhavatī́ti.

‘If both [should sing] at night, the splendor of Brahman may depart from him. As for night, it is the form of the ruling power. The splendor of Brahman does not take delight in the ruling power’ (they say). A Brahmin sings by day, while a Rājanya [does] at night. In this manner, the glory is embraced from both sides by means of Brahman and the ruling power33.

ŚBM XIII.1.5.6

áyajatéty adadād íti brāhmaṇó gāyatīṣṭāpūrtáṃ vái brāhmaṇásyeṣṭāpūrténaivàinam sá sámardhayatī́ty ayudhyatéty amúṃ saṃgrāmám ajayad íti rājanyò. yuddháṃ vái rājanyàsya vīryàm. vīryèṇaivàinaṃ sá sámardhayati (…)

‘He sacrificed. He gave’—the Brahmin sings. The religious merit for performing rituals and offering rewards belongs to the Brahmin. It is precisely this merit of performing sacrificial rituals and offering rewards that he (the Brahmin) lets him (the sacrificer) gain (they say). ‘He fought. He won the battle—a Rājanya [sings]. Indeed, the battle is the bravery of the Rājanya. It is bravery that he (the Rājanya) lets him (the sacrificer) gain.’

Bausch (2015) [48] found several similarities in philosophical concepts and terms shared by Early Buddhism and the religious heritage of the ŚB34. Probably the term saṃgrāma, introduced by ascetic religions as ‘spiritual warfare’, may have been borrowed from a plural religious context that denotes a complex map of negotiating archetypes of warrior cultures among Jain and Buddhist ascetics, in relation to the thought of Brahmanical prose. Among the later composed epic narratives of the MBh, mentions of the term saṃgrāma are so prominent that it is unaffordable to analyze each of them here. However, it seems that its meaning in this collection refers primarily to the Pāṇḍavas’ battle affairs, not as a spiritual concept, since it is used normally in a literal way to commemorate their war achievements. The verses of the MBh II.18–20, for example, affirm that the most exemplary warriors (kṣatriyas) worship a Dharmic King (dharmarāja)35. This notion of a king who bases his governance on righteousness, and the appellations as the illustrious noble (śrīmānmahātmā), the virtuous soul (dharmātmā), served there to refer to Muñjaketu, a king who was praised in those terms as ‘the conqueror of war’ (saṃgrāmajid). Furthermore, the text makes mention of a son (putra) identified as a great heroic figure, Suvīro, an individual described as the King of gods (devarāja) (see Section 3.1), defined to be ‘hard to be conquered’36 (sarvasaṃgrāmadurjayaḥ) (MBh XIII.2.11).

Archery37

The famous simile of the poisoned arrow taught to Malunkyaputta is probably the most popular among the allusions to arrows, in words remembered as the teachings of the Buddha (Seyyathā pi Māluṅkyāputta puriso sallena viddho assa savisena gāḷhapalepanena MN i 429). Similarly, the teaching of a ‘poisoned arrow, of sorrow’ (savisaṃ sokasallaṃ) (AN iii 55–56, 61) and references to the ‘arrow that makes people attach and cling’ (Etañ ca sallaṃ paṭigacca disvā ajjhositā) are presented to explain that the Tathāgatas ‘are not attached anymore’ (ajjhositaṃ n’ atthi Tathāgatānan ti AN iii 26). It seems that archery (Sk. iṣvastra), as an instructive motif for Buddhist concerns, is repeatedly covered in the Canon as a pattern of the Buddha’s discourses. Even if we do not accept this as a possible metaphorical part of the Buddha’s skill in means, we should then accept that this reference at least reflects the warrior background of many of his followers.

SN i 100

Issattam38 balaviriyañ ca yasmiṃ vijjetha māṇave—taṃ yuddhattho bhare rājā nāsūraṃjātipaccayā. Tatheva khantisoraccaṃ dhammā yasmiṃ patiṭṭhitā. tam ariyavuttiṃ medhāvī hīnajaccam pi pūjaye.

A young man in whom archery skills, strength, and courage are found—who can win, would be recruited by a king to go to war. No one is a coward by virtue of his birth. In the same way, those who are patient and gentle are aligned with Dharma. Wise and of noble conduct, they should be glorified, regardless of their low birth.

However, there are more passages that introduce archery as an allegory to encourage Buddhist practice. Given that the contents and inductive tendency of the next parables are not presented to praise the Buddhist community, we can believe that these passages could find their origin in real exchanges at the time of the Buddha.

SN ii 265–266

Seyyathāpi bhikkhave cattāro daḷhadhammā dhanuggahā sikkhitā katahatthā katupāsanā catuddisā ṭhitā assu. (…) Ekassa ce pi bhante daḷhadhammassa dhanuggahassa sikkhitassa katahatthassa katupāsanassa kaṇḍaṃ khittam appatiṭṭhitaṃ pathaviyaṃ gahetvā āhareyya. javano puriso paramena javena samannāgato ti alaṃ vacanāya. Ko pana vādo catunnaṃ daḷhadhammānam dhanuggahānaṃ sikkhitānaṃ katahatthānaṃ katupāsanānanti.

Suppose, mendicants, that there are four masters of archery, skilled and experienced, standing in the four directions with a very strong bow. (…) Even if he, Master, is not defeated on the ground by picking up an arrow thrown at him by the four masters of archery, skilled and experienced: Would this man be qualified to be called a ‘master of speed, with ultimate speed’, who would be more deserving to be called by this word [instead of using it to refer to] four masters of archery, skilled and experienced?

SN ii 266

Yathā ca bhikkhave tassa purisassa javo. yathā ca candimasūriyānaṃjavo tato sīghataro. (…) tato sīghataraṃ āyusaṅkhārā39 khīyanti. Tasmāti ha bhikkhave evaṃ sikkhitabbaṃ. Appamattā viharissāmāti. Evaṃ hi vo bhikkhave sikkhitabbanti.

Thus, mendicants, quicker that the speed [mastered] by that man, is the transitoriness of the moon and the sun. Therefore, even more quickly decrease what conditionate length of life. Hence, mendicants, you should learn in this way and say—‘We will still be practicing diligently against the current. This is how you, mendicants, should learn this’—it was said.

SN v 453 (Ānanda to the Buddha)

addasaṃ khvāham bhante sambahule licchavikumārake santhāgāre upāsanam40 karonte durato va sukhumena tāḷacchiggaḷena asanam atipātente poṅkhānupoṅkham aviradhitaṃ. Disvāna me etad ahosi. Sikkhitā vatime licchavikumarakā susikkhitā vatime licchavikumārakā yatra hi nāma durato va sukhumena tāḷacchiggaḷena asanam atipātessanti poṅkānupoṅkham avirādhitan ti.

I certainly saw, Master, some young Licchavis practicing archery. [They were] shooting arrows from a distance, one after the other, with exquisite precision to a lock, without failing. After seeing this, I thought: ‘These young Licchavis are well trained, these young Licchavis are very well trained, because they are shooting arrows from afar, one after the other, with exquisite precision to a lock, without failing’.

SN v 454

Taṃ kim maññasi Ānanda. katamaṃ nu kho dukkarataraṃ vā durabhisambhavataraṃ vā yo durato va sukhumena tāḷacchiggaḷena asanam atipāteyya poṅkhānupoṅkham avirādhitaṃ. yo vā satadhā bhinnassa vālassa koṭiyā koṭim paṭivijjheyyā ti. Atha kho Ānanda duppaṭivijjhataram paṭivijjhanti (…) Ayaṃ dukkhanirodhagāmini patipadā ti yathābhutam paṭivijjhanti.

What do you think, Ānanda, is more difficult to do, or more difficult to succeed in, shooting arrows from a distance, one after another, with exquisite precision to a lock without failing, or penetrating the hair of a horse’s tail from one end to the other? Similarly, Ānanda, these are difficult to understand and penetrate. Understanding the truth of this suffering (…) as well as understanding that there is a path to the cessation of affliction (…).

Moreover, the Buddha’s words to the young Brahmin Vāseṭṭha (MN iii 196), defining a person by his deeds and not by his social status, also refer to archery as the characteristic practice of a professional soldier (yodhājīva), a simile that, as I argue later41, implies social recognition as a ‘true warrior’, which seems to have been used early on as a concept negotiated as an endorsement of warriors as legitimate Brahmins.

MN iii 196/Sn 617 (Andersen & Smith, 1984, p. 119)

Yo hi koci manussesu issatthaṃ upajīvati, evaṃ Vāseṭṭha jānāhi, yodhājīvo, na brāhmaṇo.

Whoever among men lives by archery, Vasettha, is precisely, Vasettha, a ‘true warrior’, not a Brahmin.

MN iii 196/Sn 652 (Ibid., 122)

coro pi kammanā hoti, yodhājīvo pi kammanā, yājako kammanā [hoti], rājā pi hoti kammanā.

It is kamma [what makes] a thief, just as it is kamma [what makes] a ‘true warrior’. It is kamma [what makes] a priest who sacrifices, just as it is kamma [what makes] a king.

• From the Consecration of a Warrior to the Buddhist Renunciant as King

Many of the words attributed to the Buddha in the Canon, and how they were transmitted42, seem to have implied a constant process of negotiation influenced by the social background of converted warriors43. However, this does not mean that the Buddha could not have introduced allegories through paradigms familiar to the warrior culture. Because of the typical style of his teaching, we cannot deny that he probably could have adopted these motives, as he did with many other paradigms, to try to convince his followers of his points. Another question is whether his metaphors were transmitted far from literalism. We have evidence that many of the terms that seem to have been introduced first as metaphors were later reinterpreted for purposes of patronage in the discourse. One remarkable example of this is the appropriation of the idea of consecrating someone from the aristocratic class as a legitimate king (khattiyābhisekena), used to deny the legitimacy of someone who is a king solely because of social value (AN i 107). The Buddha’s teachings on this occasion are presented in a clear tone of criticism, defining this kind of king as a ‘hopeless man’ (puggalo nirāso) (AN i 108). The allegorical meaning of this passage seems to have been introduced to induce awareness of one’s own ethical conduct. Contrarily, in AN 5.135, the words attributed to the Buddha evoke a clear familiarity with royal and martial terminology44. On this occasion, the canonical tradition recalls the explanations of the five factors of a king, which are regarded as the Buddha’s words about a legitimate ruler in accordance with the Dharma, presented in a context that equates these qualities to explain how Buddhist renunciants should end the defilements of the mind.

AN iii 153

ahaṃ kho ‘mhi yāni tāni raññaṃ khattiyānaṃ muddhāvasittānaṃ45 sippaṭṭhānāni hatthismiṃ vā assasmiṃ vā rathasmiṃ vā dhanusmiṃ vā tharusmiṃ vā tattha sikkhito anavayo, kasmāhaṃ rajjaṃ na pattheyyan’ ti? Imehi kho bhikkhave pañcahi aṅgehi samannāgato rañño khattiyassa muddhāvasittassa jeṭṭho putto rajjaṃ pattheti. Evam eva kho bhikkhave pañcahi dhammehi samannāgato bhikkhu āsavānaṃ khayaṃ pattheti.

‘Certainly, because I have mastered the crafts of a properly anointed king—such as riding elephants, equestrian skills, driving a war chariot, archery, and swordsmanship—why shouldn’t I aspire to kingship?’ These are, precisely, mendicants, the five characteristics of the eldest son of a properly anointed king, an aristocrat who aspires to kingship. In the same way, mendicants, indeed a bhikkhu with five qualities aspire to end the defilements.

In the Canon, there are many references to a true king ‘properly anointed’ (muddhāvasitta)46 (AN iii 76, SN i 100–101, iii 144, Vin iv 160, etc.). According to the words traditionally attributed to the Buddha, we can see how, in the following passages of the Canon, it is recorded that the Buddha defined a true king with this term: one who was victorious in the spiritual battle, not in a literal battlefield.

AN i 106

rājā khattiyo muddhāvasitto saṅgāmaṃ abhivijinitvā vijitasaṅgāmo tam eva saṅgāmasīsaṃ47 ajjhāvasati.

A [true] king, properly anointed, is precisely one who has conquered [himself] in battle and endures to become a [true] referent of the [spiritual] war.

Some of the definitions attributed to the Buddha, interestingly, are introduced to explain the concept of a bhikkhu, in relation to this ideal kingship48. This discourse represents the continuous expressions of Buddhists advocating for themselves the ideal of being the ‘true warriors’, those who do not hurt any ‘sentient being’ (pāṇātipātaṃ pahāya pāṇātipātā paṭivirato hoti, nihitadaṇḍo nihitasattho DN i 171, 181). This proclamation of being the legitimate bhikkhus was, of course, related by them to be one who follows the religious teachings of the Buddha, the Master who ‘abandoned the cudgel and the sword’ (Samaṇo Gotamo nihitadaṇḍo nihitasattho DN i 4). This ethical discourse, an important part of the teachings of the Buddha that seem to have convinced to his followers (MN i 179, 267, 291, 344, ii 162, etc.), was presented as appealing to convince great kings of the Buddhist (Dharmic) ideal of not harming any sentient being (Idha mahārāja, bhikkhu pāṇātipātaṃ paha, pāṇātipātā paṭivirato hoti nihitaṇḍo nihita sattho DN i 63).These features of kingship49 represented by the Buddha, were related to, as claimed by his followers, as part of the aspects that demonstrate his divineness (uttarimanussadhammā DN iii 3–28)50, for constructing his ideal figure as the Great Man (Mahāpurisa) (cf.n. 102). This image of a superhuman leader who has abandoned warfare was included as a relevant aspect of the valid candidature of the Buddha in representing the archetype of the Universal Monarch (cakravartin)51 (manussabhūto samāno pāṇātipātaṃ pahāya pāṇātipātā paṭivirato ahosi. nihitadaṇḍo nihitasattho DN iii 149–150).

Similar references to the qualities of a legitimate king served as a discursive source for explaining also the qualities that a bhikkhu should embrace to be considered worthy of alms (puññakkhetta). In several passages of the Canon, the qualities of legitimate kinship are presented with the following formula: ‘These are the (…) qualities endowed by a king, a legitimate king. With a horse of beautiful breed and a king’s servant, a deserved king52, whose quality as a king, rumbles like [a war] horn (…) aṅgehi samannāgato rañño bhaddo assājānīyo rājāraho hoti rājabhoggo rañño aṅgan t’ eva saṅkhaṃ gacchati) (AN i 244–246, ii 113–117, 170–171, 250–251, 3.148–162, iii 248, 282, etc.). In this context, Buddhist renunciants were claimed to be the ‘worthiest recipients of alms’ (anuttaraṃ puññakkhettaṃ AN iii 160–161)53.

The Buddha encouraged his followers with metaphors such as the ‘horn’54 and the ‘royal elephant’ (rañño nāgo MN iii 132), which in ancient India symbolized instruments of war and royal authority55. These teachings were interpreted not only to promote asceticism, but also to encourage almsgiving. With this concern, the Buddha’s discourse on war as a metaphor56 evolved to praise his figure for the sake of the continuity of the Buddhist community.

2. Weapons

There is a passage that says that the Buddha encouraged his followers ‘to fight and conquer Māra with the sword of wisdom’57 (yodhetha Māraṃ paññāvudhena jitañ) (Dhp 40). Here, the term employed for ‘sword’ is āvudha. This term sometimes refers literally to swords, as seen in phrases like ‘marks of bows and swords’ (dhanulakkhaṇaṃ āyudhalakkhaṇa DN i 9, 67). On the other hand, in the subsequent passages of the Canon, the words of the Buddha refer to this term as a parable about martial expertise to explain his thought.

AN iv 110

Puna ca paraṃ bhikkhave rañño paccantime nagare bahuṃ āvudhaṃ sanniciṭaṃ hoti salākañ c’ eva jevanīyañ ca. Iminā catutthena nagaraparikkhārena suparikkhittaṃ hoti rañño paccantimaṃ nagaraṃ abbhantarānaṃ guttiyā bāhirānaṃ paṭighātāya. (…) evam eva kho bhikkhave ariyasāvako bahussuto hoti (…) diṭṭhiyā suppaṭividdhā. Sutāvudho bhikkhave ariyasāvako akusalaṃ pajahati, kusalaṃ bhāveti (…).

Just as the border of the citadel of a kingdom is full of stores of many weapons, rows of bows and arrows as wooden weapons for the protection of the inside and the contention of the outer [wall]. (…) In the same way, mendicants, the noble disciple who has heard much (…), has thoroughly understood [this] with wisdom. A noble disciple with hearing [these teachings as his] weapon renounces the unskilled and develops the skilled (…).

AN iv 110

seyyathīdaṃ hatthārohā assārohā rathikā dhanuggahā celakā calakā piṇḍadāyikā uggā rājaputtā pakkhandino mahānāgā sūrā cammayodhino dāsakaputtā abbhantarānaṃ guttiyā bāhirānaṃ paṭighātāya.

Just as the border of the citadel of a kingdom there are many armed forces dwelling: such as elephant riders, cavalry, charioteers, archers, banner holders, infant marshals, guardians of (military) provisions, fierce princes, assault troops, great elephants, brave warriors, soldiers with leather breastplates on their chests, and young warriors, sons of the slaves; for the protection of the inside and the contention of the outer [wall].

AN iv 110

evam eva kho bhikkhave ariyasāvako āraddhaviriyo viharati akusalānaṃ dhammānaṃ pahānāya, kusalānaṃ dhammānaṃ upasampadāya, thāmavā daḷhaparakkamo anikkhittadhuro kusalesu dhammesu.

In the same way, mendicants, the noble disciple who lives holding effort for abandoning demeritorious qualities of mind and cultivating the practice of virtuous qualities of mind, he is resolute and energetic in not giving up cultivating virtuous qualities of mind.

The references to the term for ‘weapon’ (āvudha) were not intended to encourage listeners to engage in violent battle, but rather to promote the ‘power of patience’ (khantibalā) as a virtue to develop, instead of the ‘power of weapons, typical of bandits’ (āvudhabalā corā) (AN iv 223). That this term is used differently depending on the context does not mean that the Buddha58 could not have borrowed this expression from Brahmanism59. Not in vain, we can find passages in which the words of the Buddha clearly (re)define the ethical implications of being a warrior with the purpose of spiritual liberation. His teachings, remembered in SN v 5–6, are a good example of how the Buddha redefined many references of the Brahmanical context. Here, in particular, it can be seen that he reorganized them as ‘weapons’ for the ‘conquest’ that concerned his followers. The Buddha here consistently seems to have been using references that his interlocutor, the Brahmin Jāṇussoṇi, and their followers, too, were familiar with. The words of the Buddha introduced the ‘vehicle of Brahmā’ (brahmayānaṃ) as well as the ‘vehicle of the Dharma’ (dhammayānaṃ), as methods for ‘conquering the highest battle’ (anuttaro saṅgāmavijayo) (SN v 5, MN iii 67, DN i 46)60. These references serve as parables for the Noble Eightfold Path (ariyassa aṭṭhaṅgikassa maggassa adhivacanaṃ).

SN v 6

Abyāpādo avihiṃsā viveko yassa āvudhaṃ titikkhā dhammasannāho yogakkhemāya vattati. Etad attaniyam bhūtaṃ brahmayānaṃ anuttaraṃ niyyanti dhīrā lokamhā aññadatthu jayaṃ jayanti.

Benevolence, non‒violence, and detachment [are] its weapons. Forgiveness is his shield and armor and takes place in release from the attachments. This ultimate vehicle of Brahmā arises from one’s own [intention]. Wise men are led from the world, and surely conquest [and achieve] victory!

Focusing on the Parable of a ‘True Warrior’

The encounters of the Buddha with some professional warriors (yodhājīva)61, as remembered in SN iv 308–309, are a good example of the literal usage of this term. When the Buddha met these soldiers, he explained to them how a wrong belief (micchādiṭṭhi) can lead to behavior with disastrous karmic consequences: rebirth in hell or in the realm of beasts (nirayaṃ vā tiracchānayoniṃ vā ti SN iv 309).

These questions about whether, as expected in Brahmanism, a soldier is reborn in the ‘company of the gods of those who have fallen, whose body has been destroyed in the afterlife’ (kāyassa bhedā param maraṇā62 sahavyatam upapajjatīti SN iv 310) seem to have disappointed the Buddha (Enough, chieftain! Let it be! Do not ask me more about that! (Alaṃ gāmani tiṭṭhatetam mā mam etam pucchīti SN iv 306–309)). The same term, yodhājīva, is introduced as the Buddha’s words to refer to ‘men as in the parable of the true warrior’ (yodhājīvūpamā puggalā) 63―allegedly, one of his many allegories to exemplify ascetism as the enterprises of a ‘warrior’ who wins in a ‘battle’ (sampahāra) (AN iii 90–93).

AN iii 93

So evaṃ samāhite citte parisuddhe pariyodāte anaṅgaṇe vigatūpakkilese mudubhūte kammaniye thite ānejjappatte āsavānaṃ khayañāṇāya cittaṃ abhininnāmeti (…) Seyyathā pi so bhikkhave yodhājīvo sahati rajaggaṃ sahati dhajaggaṃ sahati ussādanaṃ sahati sampahāraṃ. So taṃ saṃgāmaṃ abhivijinitvā vijitasaṃgāmo tam eva saṃgāmasīsaṃ ajjhāvasati, tathūpamāhaṃ bhikkhave imaṃ puggalaṃ vadāmi. Evarūpo pi bhikkhave idh’ ekacco puggalo hoti. Ayaṃ bhikkhave pañcamo yodhājīvūpamo puggalo santo saṃvijjamāno bhikkhūsu.

When in this way the mind is purified and cleansed, passionless, deprived of defilements, becoming soft and functional and remaining imperturbable amidst mental corruptions, by understanding exhaustion, the mind is focused (…). Just, mendicants, as a ‘true warrior’, he endures the mass of dust and the banner, he endures to make his way [in the middle of] a crowd [in the heat of] a battle. He is called precisely the one who has conquered war and perseveres to become a [true] referent of the [spiritual] war. This is the truth, mendicants, of the parable I say about this [type] of man. This is indeed how some people are. This, mendicants, is the fifth type of calmed men [to be] found among monks like [those] in the parable of the ‘true warrior’.

AN iii 100

Seyyathā pi so bhikkhave yodhājīvo asicammaṃ gahetvā dhanukalāpaṃ sannayhitvā viyūḷham saṃgāmaṃ otarati, so taṃ saṃgāmaṃ abhivijinitvā vijitasaṃgāmo tam eva saṃgāmasīsaṃ ajjhāvasati, tathūpamāhaṃ bhikkhave imaṃ puggalaṃ vadāmi. Evarūpo pi bhikkhave idh’ ekacco puggalo hoti. Ayaṃ bhikkhave pañcamo yodhājīvūpamo puggalo santo saṃvijjamāno bhikkhūsu.

Just as a ‘true warrior’, renunciants, holding his sword and shield and armed with his bow and quiver, descends to line up for battle, he is ready to engage in battle. He is called precisely the one who has conquered war and perseveres to become a [true] referent of the [spiritual] war. This is the truth, mendicants, of the parable I say about this [type] of man. This is indeed how some people are. This, mendicants, is the fifth type of calmed men [to be] found among monks like [those] in the parable of the ‘true warrior’.

The Buddha’s teaching here sounds like a metaphor. However, this expression of claims about being a ‘true warrior’ seems to have been composed as an important aspect of portraying Buddhist renunciants as leaders of the battle for the survival of their own religious tradition64, which depended fundamentally on its ability to create a convincing and inspiring ideology, powerful enough to maintain the support of the political elites. The term yodhājīva in AN ii 202 refers to the ‘great victory of a noble disciple of the Buddha who has destroyed the aggregates of ignorance’ (ariyasāvako mahantaṃ avijjākkhandhaṃ padāletī). In the lines of the Yodhājīvasutta (s) (AN i 285, AN ii 250) the ideal bhikkhu is compared to a professional warrior using the same term, which remains the very essence of the Buddha’s teachings, except in the aspect of the holistic appropriation of his metaphor for all renunciants, and also, moreover, that the references to a ‘true warrior’ (yodhājīva) and the descriptions of who should be considered worthy of kingship (rājāraho hoti rājabhoggo), are used to promote again the figure of the Buddhist renunciate as the ‘highest field of merit in this world’ (anuttaraṃ puññakkhettaṃ lokassāti (AN ii 251)).

In the MBh, there is only one mention of a similar expression, yudhājīva, which is defined in the MW as the proper name of a man. In the following lines, the expression yudhājīva reflects why the sages had to give power to the Kṣatriya class65. Not only is it noteworthy that these lines represent an affirmation of Brahmanical respect for the warrior class, but it is also significant that the term yudhājīva was a popular reference for warriors to invoke when asserting their own legitimacy.

MBh 3.183.25 (Sukthankar, 1942, p. 626)

satyamanyur yudhājīvaḥ satyadharmapravartakaḥ|adharmād ṛṣayo bhītā balaṃ kṣatre samādadhan.

[A king is] the true warrior, the one who realises his fury (satyamanyu-) [and] who promotes the real Dharma. Fearing [that they would be considered] unrighteous, the [Brahmin] sages entrusted supremacy to the Kṣatriya class.

In previous lines of the MBh, the sacred power (Bráhman) inherited by the Brahmin class and secular power were combined. Their cooperation is described as the key factor that enables a king to rule the world properly. Brahmins defined the archetype of a king when advocating legitimate kingship, which was intrinsically related to their own claim of legitimacy as holders of the sacred power (Bráhman).

MBh 3.183.22–23 (Ibid., 625–626)

brahma kṣatreṇa sahitaṃ kṣatraṃ ca brahmaṇā saha, rājā vai prathamo dharmaḥ prajānāṃ patir eva ca, sa eva śakraḥ śukraś ca sa dhātā sa bṛhaspatiḥ.

The Brahmin class is connected with the warrior class, and the warrior class is connected with the Brahmin class. The king is certainly of the foremost nature, lord among people. He is precisely [called] powerful, resplendent. He is the creator. He is Bṛhaspati.

Furthermore, it seems that yudhājīva was an important term used to advocate Indra as the true warrior. This was not intended as a metaphor, but rather as a consistent justification for the effectiveness of the endeavors of many Brahmins from an earlier period. In the Jaiminīyabrāhmaṇa (JB), this term is used to refer to both Vaiśvāmitra and Indra.

JB I.122 (Vira, 1937, p. 34)

atha yaudhājayam, indro vai yudhājīvann etat sāmāpaśyat, yad indro yudhājīvann etat sāmāpaśyat tad yaudhājayasya yaudhājayatvam, ayudha iva dviṣantaṃ bhrātṛvyaṃ jayati ya evaṃ veda.

And now the Yaudhājaya. Indra, who was living by war, saw this Sāman. Because Indra, who was living by war (yudhājīvan), saw this Sāman, therefore the Yaudhājaya is called Yaudhājaya. He who knows thus overcomes his hating rival without fighting (ayudha) as it were (Bodewitz, 1973, p. 226) [62].

JB I.122

yudhājīvo vaiśvāmitraḥ pratiṣṭhākāmas tapo ‘tapyata, sa etat sāmāpaśyat, tenāstuta, tato vai sa pratyatiṣṭhat, tad etat pratiṣṭhā sāma, pratitiṣṭhati ya evaṃ veda, yad u yudhājīvo vaiśvāmitro ‘paśyat tasmād v eva yaudhājayam ity ākhyāyate.

Yudhājīva Vaiśvāmitra, desiring firm support, performed austerities. He saw this Sāman. He praised it. Then he obtained a firm support. Therefore, this Sāman is a firm support. He who knows thus gets a firm support. And because Yudhājīva Vaiśvāmitra saw it, therefore also it is called Yaudhājaya.

We can observe that the relationship between these important figures in the history of Brahmanical thought seem to be not coincidental66, as it involved the deliberate intertwining of the possibility of unexpected poetical inspiration, even for those who emerged from the warrior class, as Viśvāmitra67. This background surrounding references to yudhājīva68, which in the religious context of Brahminism seems to represent the desire of many warriors with Brahmanical knowledge to be recognized as Brahmins, an ideal that Buddhist practitioners seem to have attempted to emulate (McGovern, 2018; Villamor, 2024) [35,64]. It is likely that many of the converted Brahmins and warrior followers of the Buddha could have been influenced by Brahmanical thought in this sense. In fact, among Buddhists, the appropriation of Brahmanical thought was characterized by a particular interest in praising the Buddha by reframing terms related to the archetype of the God-hero. In Brahminism, this implied the negotiation of the very same two sides: Brahminhood and warriorhood69.

3. The Influence of the Vedic Celestial Battles in Buddhism

There are many passages in the Canon where it is said that the Buddha referred to the celestial battles of the Vedic gods. The ambiguity surrounding the behavior of the Vedic gods was removed in Buddhist narratives70. Indra was transformed into a model practitioner of the Dharma71 and Vepacitti (Sk. Vipracitti), the king of the asuras (asurinda) (SN i 50–51, 221–228, 239), as the embodiment of evil forces. References to this celestial war are told by the Buddha to encourage his followers72, by explaining how the god Indra recovered from an initial defeat in battle.

AN iv 432, SN i 224

Tasmiṃ kho pana bhikkhave saṅgāme asurā jiniṃsu, devā parājiyiṃsu. Parājitā ca bhikkhave devā apayiṃsveva, uttarenābhimukhā abhiyiṃsu asurā.

At that time, mendicants, certainly the demigods won the [Celestial] War, and the gods were defeated. Defeated, mendicants, the gods escaped to the north with the demigods in constant hunt. (…).

AN iv 434

ayaṃ vuccati:

bhikkhave bhikkhu antam akāsi Māraṃ apadaṃ vadhitvā Māracakkhuṃ adassanaṃ gato pāpimato tiṇṇo loke visattikan ti.

This is, mendicants, [what is] called a bhikkhu who has blindfolded Māra, destroyed its evil eye, and [takes refuge in an unreachable place] that cannot be seen by its wicked eye, the footless evil, [since he has already] crossed this world, [its world of] craving.

SN i 225

Iti kho bhikkhave Sakkassa devānam indassa dhammeneva jayo73 ahosī ti.

As I have told [you], mendicants, [this is] indeed how Indra, Lord of the Gods, won by following the Dharma.

These characteristic stories were introduced to illustrate not only the ethical methods propounded by the Buddha (as the Four Noble Truths (SN v 447)), but also the beliefs religiously associated with the worship of Indra, in a way that suggests more than the Buddha’s assimilation of ideas from ancient Brahmanism74; and a probable later convergence with the narratives of the Purāṇas (Takagi, 1969) [68]. The example of SN i 227 is instructive in this regard, where it is said that even moral (Brahmanical) seers were rejected by Indra because they sought the protection of the demon lord Sambara.

SN i 227

Bhūtapubbam bhikkhave sambahulā isayo sīlavanto kalyāṇadhammā samuddatīre paṇṇakuṭīsu sammanti (…) Atha kho bhikkhave te isayo sīlavanto kalyāṇadhammā seyyathāpi nāma balavā puriso sammiñjitam vā bāham pasāreyya pasāritaṃ vā bāhaṃ sammiñjeyya. evam eva samuddatīre paṇṇakuṭīsu antarahitā Sambarassa asurindassa pamukhe pātur ahesuṃ.

Once upon a time, there were mendicants, a few seers who were ethical and of good conduct. They lived peacefully in huts made of leaves by the sea. (…) Then certainly, mendicants, just as [even though] those seers who were ethical and of good conduct, having cursed Sambara, one of the kings of the demigods—similar to how [easily] a powerful man bends and stretches his arm75—just [as easily as that], they vanished from the presence of Sambara, one of the kings of the demigods, and reappeared in the river of the sea, in [their] huts made of leaves.

The figure of Indra, probably the most popular deity in ancient Brahminism, served many times as a narrative model for Buddhist ethics. The appropriation of his figure is plausible in many passages of the Canon. The explanations on the celestial war attributed to the Buddha in SN i 219 encourage Buddhist followers not to be afraid of facing the ‘three fires of mind (Sakko hi bhikkhave devānam indo avītarāgo avītadoso avītamoho bhīru chambhī utrāsī palāyīti). Among the ethical theories of tales involving the classical war of the Vedic gods, the Sambarimāyāsutta (SN i 238–239) has an interesting analogy. In this text, Sakka visited Vepacitti, who begged him to relieve his pain, but first Sakka asked that the magical words of the lord of the asuras be revealed to him. The Buddhist narratives portray Sakka as an exemplary practitioner of the Buddhist precepts who gave the lord of the evil powers an opportunity for salvation. Moreover, it is told that Indra emerged victorious as the lord among gods, due to his good speech (Iti kho bhikkhave Sakkassa devānam indassa subhāsitena jayo ahosi SN i 224), a clear reference to his words, as the heritage of the teachings of the Buddha (SN i 188–189). Additionally, the main moral lesson about patience (P. khanti) when facing evil is the same. Indra explains this point as follows:

SN i 223

Evaṃ vutte bhikkhave Sakko devānam indo imā gāthāyo abhāsi:

Kāmaṃ76 maññatu vā mā vā, bhayā myāyam titikkhati, sadatthaparamā atthā, khantyā bhiyyo na vijjati. yo have balavā santo, dubbalassa titikkhati, tam āhu paramaṃ khantiṃ, niccaṃ khamati dubbalo.

Abalantam balaṃ āhu:

yassa bālabalaṃ balaṃ,balassa dhammaguttassa, paṭivattā na vijjati. Tass-eva tena pāpiyo, yo kuddhaṃ paṭikujjhati, kuddham appaṭikujjhanto saṅgāmaṃ77 jeti dujjayaṃ78. (…) So hi nāma bhikkhave Sakko devānam indo sakaṃ puññaphalam upajīvamāno devānaṃ Tāvatiṃsānaṃ issariya-dhipaccaṃ rajjaṃ karonto khantisoraccassa vaṇṇavādī bhavissati.

When this was said, mendicants, the king of gods, Indra recited these stanzas:

‘Whether one desires to think or not, fear can be endured patiently. Practicing patience consistently is the highest victory. Certainly, one who bears weakness with power and calmness is defined as patient. Patience is the strength to endure continuously in the face of weakness. They call it the strength of non-resistance, [quite different from] the ‘strength’ of fools. There is no strength in those who do not protect the Dharma. That is precisely how evil people respond to anger. The most difficult conquest is the [spiritual] battle, for which one must learn not to react with anger’. (…) He certainly, mendicants, called Sakka, the Lord of the Devas, received the fruit of his own religious merit and was praised for exercising supreme sovereignty and becoming the ruler of his kingdom over the Devas in the Tavatiṃsa heaven, through patience and gentleness.

It may be that the Buddha began the ‘conversion’ of Indra to Buddhist values by using the image of Indra as an understandable reference for his followers. What seems clear, however, is that his followers did not end up interpreting and transmitting his teachings by praising the Buddha as Indra. The consecration of the Buddha as the supreme ‘conqueror’ was linked to the way in which his figure was praised in terms associated with the archetype of the Vedic God-hero.

3.1. The Conquest of Indra: Replacing the Archetype of the God‒Hero

The Buddhist Canon presents many narratives in which the Buddha is worshipped as the most iconic hero79. In the following examples, I will show how the archetype of the Vedic God-hero was redefined by Buddhists and Jains, as portrayed in their scriptures, to praise their religious founders, replacing Indra as the supreme warrior, as one from the aristocracy might have expected.

It is remarkable how the Buddha is praised with references to his figure in relation to the sun cult, possibly reflecting the heritage of the Vrātya80 culture (Amano, 2022, p. 1041; Dore, 2015) [69,72] and its many mythical representations (ādicca/suriya) in Brahmanical motifs (Sakkapañha suttanta DN ii 263–289). What is of most interest here is that, in these narratives, it is Indra who reverenced the Buddha and recognized him as the ‘Greatest Hero’ (mahāvīra).

DN ii 287–288

Taṇhāsallassa hantāraṃ Buddhaṃ appaṭipuggalaṃ, Ahaṃ vande mahāvīraṃ [vandām’]81 ādiccabandhunaṃ. Yaṃ karomase [Brahmuno] samaṃ devehi mārisa Tad ajja tuyhaṃ kassāma handa sāmaṃ karoma te. Tuvam ev’ asi sambuddho tuvaṃ satthā anuttaro, Sadevakasmiṃ lokasmiṃ n’ atthi te paṭipuggalo ti.’

Destroyer of the arrow of desire, the Buddha is unique. I pay respect to you, the Great Hero, the Buddha, kinsman of the Sun. Who is worshipped as Brahman, we gods will surely honour you, Venerable. Come! Allow us to do [this] in person. You, and only you, are the Buddha! You are the Supreme Master! There is no god in any heaven, equal to you.

That the Buddha or his followers, who unexpectedly often are the target of the homage of gods who ultimately are placed on a lower level than theirs, is not only the common method of taking advantage of the fame of these gods, but there is also an interesting aspect that resonates as echoes of the Vrātya culture, in which the ascetic is apparently presented as whom the gods worship (Neri & Pontillo, 2023, pp. 121–124) [73]. Moreover, the substitution of a new divine figure, instead of Indra, was also a prominent theme shared in the ancient poetic heritage of the Vrātya culture (Dore, 2015, p. 35) [72]. As the lines of the SN i 215 (Suvīro devaputto82 Sakkassa devānam indassa) portray, it is unlikely that this discourse of Buddhists related to Vedic cosmology and the warrior archetype of Indra has no connection with the substratum of the Vrātya culture, especially when the figure of Indra is presented on his knees by Buddhist authors. The Conquest of Indra, on behalf of the popularity of the Buddha and Buddhists, was conveyed by Buddhist authors, responding to the same Vrātya tradition and the necessity of convincing that the Buddha must be recognized as the legitimate figure of a divine warrior-king. In the SN i 219–220, when the Buddha mentions the war between the devas and the asuras (devāsurasaṅgāmo), at the same time his words praise indirectly himself as superior among Vedic gods (Īsāna, Pajāpati or Varuṇa) who are told to not deserve to be called ‘king among gods’ (devarāja). Even Sakka, referred to as Lord of the Devas (devānamindo), is also denied this title because it is said that he is not free from the ‘three fires of suffering’ (avītarāgo avītadoso avītamoho). In other scriptures, Vepacitti, chief of the asura forces, recognized Sakka as the legitimate king among the gods (devarāja) and as the lord of the gods (devānaminda) (SN i 239). In this regard, the core claim in the Buddhist scriptures seems to be the replacement of Sakka, the King of Gods (devarāja) (Ja 301, 340, 347, 417, 488, 494, 499, 500, 522, 523, 541), in the service of Buddhist propaganda, in which the term of devarāja (Th 531) was introduced to praise the Buddha as the supreme representative of the ideal Buddhist hero (vīro) (Th 533). Thus, the figure of Indra was restructured as worshipping Buddhist renunciates and laymen (sammā pabbajite vande, brahmacariyaparāyane, ye gahaṭṭhā, puññakarā, sīlavanto, upāsakā) (SN i 234).

3.1.1. Great Hero

The cultural context in which Jains and Buddhists venerated the figure of their religious leaders shared similar motifs83. For instance, mahāvīra (great hero) and jina (conqueror) are just two of the broad examples that speak to how, in Jain thought, many teachings were based similarly on the warrior background. Probably one of the earliest references to the use of mahāvīrá is in RV I.32.6, where it is used to praise Indra as the most representative archetype of a warrior whose enemies (índraṣatru) are entirely pulverized. The praise of the Buddha as the Great Hero (mahāvīra), superior to any human being (dvipaduttama) or God (devadevaṃ), and the supreme warrior descendant (orasa) of the nāgas (Th 1278–1279) are good examples of how Buddhists worshipped the Buddha, probably through their own previous religious background. The Pāli Canon uses the title mahāvīra to refer to the Buddha, the Great Hero (SN i 16, 193, etc.) of Great Wisdom (mahāpañña) (SN i 121), and mentions it in the plural (SN i 110) referring to the Buddhas as leading figures who guide according to the ‘true Dharma’ (Nayanti ve mahāvīrā, saddhammena tathāgatā) (SN i 127).

It is obvious that the Jains used the title of Great Hero. Metaphors related to warfare seem to have been one of the common backgrounds from which ascetic traditions of Magadha drew references to explain the virtues that concerned renunciants, but especially to describe their leading religious figures. Allegories of war in Jain thought served to establish a cathedra in their interpretation of the concept of ‘sage’ (muṇī), a term introduced to praise many important figures in the Jain traditions. Some passages of the Āyārāṅga (Āy) used the very same terms of from the warriors’ culture, as in Buddhist scriptures to refer to the sages who have crossed to the ‘Otherside’ (se hu (‘pāraṃgame’) muṇī (Āy VI.5.3.21), as ‘[true] referents of the [spiritual] war’ (saṃgāmasīsa) (kāyassa viovāe esa (saṃgāma-sīse) viyāhie Āy VI.5.3.20) (Bollée & Soni, 2004, p. 210), what, of course, were references for encouraging renunciants (bhikkhus)84—mentioned as the holy ascetic (muṇi) who ‘subdue his enemies in the front of the battle’ (saṃgāmasīse va paraṃ damejjā SŪ 7.29)—to go fearlessly (saṃgāmammi va bhīruyā SŪ 3.1.7; jahā saṃgāmakālammi, piṭhao bhīru vehai SŪ 3.3.1) determined to face ‘death’ (kiṃ paraṃ maraṇaṃ siyā SŪ 3.3.6) ‘at the front of the battle’ (raṇasīse, saṃgāmammi uvaṭhie SŪ 3.1.1–2), for one’s own liberation. Jains referred to their representative figures, considered as winners of the most important battle, as ‘holy ascetics, free from any conflict’ (muṇī vigayasaṃgāmo Utt 9.22) (Charpentier, 1922, p. 97). The same descriptions were used to refer to the founder of Jainism, also by his followers as ‘the immovable Blessed one (acale bhagavaṃ rīitthā), the Great Hero’ (mahāvīre), the ‘Hero who is the [true] referent of [spiritual] war’ (sūro saṃgāmasīse) (Āy 9.3.7–13) (Bollée & Soni, 2004, p. 221). Here, we can see how Jains depicted their religion, with the concern of being sponsored by kings and warrior aristocrats (Dundas, 2002, p. 118) [29]. A similar discourse is plausible through the Pāli sources, which present an image of the ideal king as a beneficial institution for the saṅgha (Zimmermann, 2006, p. 223) [19]. To be considered a legitimate “referent of the spiritual war” for the followers of these religions was not a mere metaphor but a vital necessity. The terms in which this was discussed by the ascetic traditions echo the ancient social context of Brahmanical thought. The concern of patronage by royal, powerful figures was a historical preoccupation among Vedic Brahmins, too, for which the idea of ‘leading’ as religious authority was not precisely unfounded.

It is not easy to find references to an equivalent concept (saṃgāmaśīrṣa/saṃgāmaśiras) in Brahmanical sources. However, the same term used by Jains and Buddhists to refer to themselves as the leading figures of their time, ‘head’ (śīrṣa), was an important referent of Brahmanical authority85. This can be seen in important hymns that portray the ontological cosmovision of Vedic Brahmins that refer to their primigenial cosmovision of the universe as a sacrificial giant (púruṣamedha)86 who has ‘thousand heads’ (sahásraśīrṣā) (RV X.90, ŚBM XIII.6.2.12), or also referred to as the creation act of Prajāpati, deriving from his very head (śīrṣata)87. Moreover, there are passages in which the knowledge of the Brahmanical rituality of áśvamedha88 (RV V.27.6) is advocated as to be what converts warriors into ‘head leader among kings’ (śíro vā ‘etád yajñásya yád ekavim̐ śáḥ yó vā́ ‘śvamedhe trī́ṇi śīrṣā́ṇi véda śiro ha rā́jñām bhavaty) (ŚBM XIII.3.3.10) (Weber, 1964, p. 975). The term ‘head’ (śīrṣa) was a common reference among Vedic chanting, when Brahmins invoked the Aśvins (RV VI.62.10), but especially when they expressed the devotion that Indra deserves (RV I.132.2, VII.18.24). Moreover, it was the constant reference when they prayed to him, Indra (or Agni, RV X.87.16), to sever the heads of their adversaries (RV I.33.5, AVŚ I.7.7), but also to chop off their own as punishment (ŚBM XIV.1.1.22; XIV.2.2.44). Also, it was introduced to point out the leading aspects of Vedic sacrifices and rituals, such as the vital principle of ‘breath’ (prāṇā́) (ŚBM XIII.1.7.2–4; AB I.17.9–10; AB III.3.1). In other words, for Vedic Brahmins, from early on, the term ‘head’ (śīrṣa) meant ‘leading’ religious authority. That for them, the ‘head’ leading force of their sacrifices was Bráhman (transformative speech), is not only obvious89, but constantly reaffirmed by referring to the legitimate religious authority that Brahmins described as ‘leading’90, when they admonished religious practices, as ‘headless sacrifice’ to be without Brahminical legitimacy (tenā́paśīrṣṇā yajñéna) (ŚBM XIV.1.1.17; XIV.2.2.49; TĀ V.1.6.7) (See also TĀ V.1.7.8–13; V.4.7.2 or V.10.3.7)

3.1.2. Undefeatable

The desire to win in various warlike enterprises by acquiring the celestial patronage of Indra was the main interest of many war clans that contributed to the early development of Brahmanism. This can be seen in the following passages of the RV, where the expression áyuddha is used to describe the impossibility of the enemies of those who have invoked the great power of Indra (RV X.27.10 VIII.45.3). This concern for success on the battlefield through the blessings of the gods was addressed through various Brahmanical rituals, most prominently by invoking the help of Indra. This is evident from the many ancient allusions to him in terms such as ‘conqueror of his enemies in battle’ (śátrūn samanīkéṣu jétā RV X.107.11) ‘invincible’ (ajeta RV I.129.6) and descriptions of Indra as the ‘invincible conquering hero’ that many warriors and Brahmins expected him to be (jétā (…) prtsú śūraḥ RV I.178.3, jétā śátrūn II.41.12, jétā IV.20.5, jétā hitám dhánam VI.45.2, jétāram VIII.99.7). In the RV there are references praising Indra as the undefeated (áparājita)91 RV I.11.2–3, as conqueror (jétā) RV I.178.3, VI.45.2 of enemies (RV II.41.12) and the unhurt hero (sárvavīra RV I.105.19, III.62.3, IX.90.3). It is undeniable that these terms were introduced to praise Indra as part of the process of constructing the archetypal Brahmanical figure of the God-hero that Aryan warriors aspired to emulate92. Consequently, he is commemorated as the Lord among Kings (rā́jendra RV I.174.1; I.178.2) and exalted as the most iconic heroic figure. There is no doubt that many of the Buddha’s followers remembered the Buddha as if he were Indra93. We can believe that many of the warriors who converted to Buddhism were familiar with the warrior culture of honoring Indra (MN ii 75–83). The emergence of the ‘divine eye’ (dibbacakkhu), one of the ‘three supreme realizations’ (tevijjā) associated with the Buddha, as well as the descriptions of the ‘destruction of darkness’ (tamokhandhaṃ padālayuṃ), as the victory over ignorance, are no more relevant than the fact that his followers expressly worshiped the Buddha as Indra (Inda, Sakka): as ‘Undefeated in war’ (saṅgāme aparājita) (Thī 120–121, 181).

As I argue in this study, many of the terms and concepts of warrior culture seem to have been reinterpreted not only to honor the Buddha but also, within the concern of portraying the Buddhist community as the most legitimate religious group, in the pursuit of winning the race for royal patronage. For example, the expression ‘undefeatable’94 can be found in the compound aparājitasaṅgha (SN i 26) in two specific texts of the Canon (aparājitasaṃghan DN ii 254), which also collect many references and deities from the Brahmanical pantheon that congregate at Kapilavatthu to praise not only the Buddha, but the saṅgha itself. The Buddha’s efforts to make himself understood and encourage converted warriors through metaphors led not only to him being praised by them but also constituted a magnificent narrative framework to be used in the campaign for alms. One illustrative example of this is seen in Iti 75. This text, of probable later composition, portrays this tendency in which the allegories of war developed to construct the figure of Buddhist disciples and the Buddha himself as the most prominent figures in the campaign for social recognition95.

Iti 75

Eso ariyasāvako vijitasaṅgāmo, tam eva saṅgāmasīsaṃ abhivijiya ajjhāvasatīti. (…) Disvā vijitasaṅgāmaṃ sammāsambuddhasāvakaṃ. devatā pi namassanti mahantaṃ vītasāradaṃ. Namo te purisājañña yo tvaṃ dujjayam ajjhabhū. jetvāna96 maccuno senaṃ  vimokkhena anāvaraṃ.

This noble disciple, he is precisely one who has conquered [the spiritual] war and perseveres to become a [true] referent of the [spiritual] war. (…) That meant the [words] said by the Buddha. This was said then:

‘Having seen a noble disciple of the fully awakened Buddha, a conqueror of the [the spiritual] war, the great fearless. They will honor [him] as even a god. They [will venerate him by saying:] Oh remarkable man! They [honor you], you are the one who has overcome the most difficult [battle], after having conquered the army of death, which could not impede your liberation’.

The Buddha, who believed in the liberating power of compassion, advised his followers to change themselves by avoiding enmity. It seems that the Buddha could have explained the disastrous consequences of a negative intention by pointing out that a ‘conqueror gets what he deserves, a conquest’ (jetāram labhati jāyaṃ SN i 85). Furthermore, the Buddha may have introduced references to concepts common among warriors, as well as the archetype of a righteous king, to make his followers understand the importance of conquering (vijitāvīna) liberation by practicing ethical precepts and monastic rules (Idha bhikkhave bhikkhu sīlavā hoti, pātimokkhasaṃ varasaṃvuto viharati) (AN iii 151). We can observe, however, that these metaphors were again transmitted in the Canon, interpreted literally to praise the Buddha as the most iconic conqueror (vijitāvino)97 of the world (Buddhā loke anuttarāti SN iii 84).

3.1.3. Conqueror

The lines in DN ii 275 praise the Buddha as the ‘one who crossed the river of suffering’ (nitiṇṇaogha) and as the ‘one who destroyed every kind of doubt’ (vicikicchachinna): the Conqueror (jina), ‘lord among men’ (janinda). In DN iii 197, the great king Vessavaṇa recited the Āṭānāṭiya protection, which reflects many references to Vedic motifs such as Aṅgīrasa98 and Kuvera among many other gods, and the presence of the repeated praise of a great army of gods called Indra (indanāmā mahabbalā), apparently described on his knees in front of the ‘new’ Conqueror (jina): the Buddha himself.

DN iii 197

Jinaṃ vandatha Gotamaṃ, Jinaṃ vandāma Gotamaṃ, Vijjā-caraṇa-sampannaṃ Buddhaṃ vadāma Gotamaṃ.

Honor the conqueror Gotama! Let’s honor the conqueror Gotama! Who is perfect in wisdom and moral conduct. Let’s honor the Conqueror Gotama!

Praising the Buddha, as the Jains did with their religious leaders, as a ‘conqueror’ (jina)99 was related by Buddhist narrators to the figure of the lord of the Vedic gods100, who seems to have been one of the most important and constant references for Buddhists when they remembered the image of the Buddha.

Th Ap ii 478 (Th Ap 538) (Lilley, 2000, p. 478)

bhūmiyaṃ patitaṃ dantaṃ indaketuṃ vā pātitaṃ gatāyusaṃgataklesaṃ jinasāsanakārakaṃ. tato āmantayī satthā sāvake sāsane rate: gaṇhatha hutvā jhāpetha tanuṃ sabrahmacārino.

Like the banner of Indra, like the teeth in the field, a practitioner of the Conqueror’s teaching has destroyed the affliction connected with the end of life. From then on, when the disciples were delighted, the Master explained: ‘Be those who live a spiritual life by holding, guiding, and ‘burning’ [ignorance].

The conquest of the God-hero archetype by Buddhists to praise the Buddha brought with it not only the secular warrior side of a hero (warriorhood) but also its sacred side: Brahminhood. Brahminhood, as the sacred side of kingship, was constructed from the image of the consecrated warrior who has triumphed in his conquering, an important historical aspect that derived from the Vrātya culture (Heesterman, 1995) [82]. A significant part of the references to the war context in the Canon implied the adaptation of Brahmanical thought, with special interest in constructing a success map of ideas that covered the social substratum of different warriors from a diverse Aryan background, with Vrātya culture in the core of the advocacy of the Buddha as the most legitimate figure to represent the leader101 archetype of a God-hero who embodied both: warriorhood and Brahminhood. This is plausible in references where the Buddha is praised, representing the ideal of the Universal Monarch. The advocacy of the Buddha as the legitimate king of the spiritual battle within the discourse that proclaims him as the Cakravartin simultaneously venerates his royal legitimacy as the right leader who truly endorsed Brahma(n)102 (Brahmujjugatto) (DN iii 50). Here, we can see, again, how Buddhists portray the figure of the Buddha in Brahminical terms, specifically in resonance with the ideal of the consecrated warrior of Vrātya culture, defined in the Heesterman’s theory as the ‘figure of a knight-errant in quest of the brahman’, in which converged what the social context expected, both, skills of a warrior and those of a priest (Heesterman 1995, pp. 640–652) [82]. In this process, which may have influenced the deification of the Buddha, Buddhists presented themselves as the legitimate aspirants for royal counselling that responds to the ideals of right kingship. The worship of the Buddha as the most iconic king involved not only the conversion of many warriors but also his veneration as the ‘Unvanquished Supreme Being’ who embodied the sublime aspects of both the sacred side (Brahmā) and the warrior leader (Indra). This is a characteristic negotiation of his figure that entailed the reconstruction of his figure, with special interest in referencing him within a Brahmanical context, in the idyllic form of the Vrātya leader. I will finally reconsider the historical implications and development of the Buddhist discourse on this point.

3.2. Praising the Buddha as the Unvanquished Supreme Being

Appleton (2017, p. 78) [66], based on previous studies, argued that the terms ‘vanquisher’ (abhibhū) and ‘unvanquished’ (anabhibhūto) could be sarcastic and that they are not found in Brahmanical literature. Rather, while her studies of Buddhist narratives are insightful, I cannot agree with this view, since, as I will argue below, these terms in the Buddhist Canon not only serve to interpret the figure of the Buddha from a Brahmanical context, but were also inherently related with the ancient Brahmanical archetype of the God-hero, in the middle of a dialectic battle for the right to represent the Buddha as the Unvanquished Supreme Being.

The Buddha is referred to with the title of abhibhū103 as the holy ascetic (muni) who conquered Mārā (Mārābhibhū MN ii 146, Sn 545, 571, Th 839). It is also said that one who has attained liberation will not experience rebirth again, due to his/her victorious conquest (abhibhūta) in the [spiritual] war (vijitasaṅgāma) against Māra104 (abhibhūto māro vijitasaṅgāmo Ud 33; vīrā vijitasaṃgāmā jetvā Māraṃ savāhanaṃ Th 177). Among many similar paradigms, it is worth reconsidering the implications of praising the Buddha with the title of ‘unvanquished’ (abhibhū́), a term that serves as a referential expression to Indra in the RV (VIII.97.9–10, I.100.10, etc.). Its etymology suggests it was coined by warriors to extol Indra, not only in the sense of a warrior, but as the Unvanquished Supreme Being. The descriptions of the Buddha in AN iv 89–90 are a valuable example of how his figure was praised. On the one hand, there’s the sacred side, which describes the Buddha as Brahmā, and, on the other hand, there’s the secular one, which describes him as a majestic king (patāpavant) (MN ii 146, Sn 555, Th 820). The concept of ideal kingship in terms of divine heroism is a widely used theme in Indian literature. According to Hayashima (1982) [88], the genesis of the literary transmission of the rulership of a kingdom is earliest documented in India in the Aitareya-Brāhmaṇa (AB I.14) (c. VIII BCE). Gradually, however, the coronation of a king was attributed to the will of god and thus to the representative of god, which led to the common vision of a ruler as a representative of the will of the gods, or even as a god (deva) in his own right, if he was able to manage ruling in peace, according to the Dharmic values (Hayashima, 1982, pp. 52–53) [88]. The development of the idea of a king as god in ancient India it has been covered also in the philosophical suggestions of the Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad (KU), a text which presents a vivid image of the throne of Brahmā, as a representation of the sovereign power of a king, another good example of the intrinsic relationship between powerful rulers under Brahmanical influence (Fujii, 2022) [89]. In fact, the Brahmanical conception of society105 and kingship was intrinsically and centrally linked to the alliance106 of Brahmins and warriors (Olivelle, 2012, p. 128) [44]. Neri & Pontillo (2014) [91] found an association between Indra and the title of Brahmā in the KU, and a structural appropriation of the concept of the ideal hero in Brahminical and Buddhist thought. On the reminiscence of Vrātya culture in Vedic sources, the momentary attainment of Brahminhood by warriors during Vedic rituals, and as references to the division of the figure of the consecrated warrior into kṣatriya and brāhmaṇa, respectively, through the composition of the myth of Brahman and kṣatra created by Prajāpati (RV VII. 19–24), see Neri & Pontillo (2016) [92]. This cultural baggage of the Vrātyas seems to have been the fundamental motivation that influenced the unification not only of those two aspects in the archetype of the God-hero in Brahmanical sources, but also the way in which the figure of the Buddha was praised. As noticed in the following lines of the Canon, these two facets converged in the end in the narratives on his consolidation as the Universal Ruler (Cakkavattin)107.

AN iv 89.

Tatra sudaṃ bhikkhave Brahmā homi Mahābrahmā abhibhū108 anabhibhūto aññadatthudaso Vasavattī. Chattiṃsakkhattuṃ kho panāhaṃ bhikkhave Sakko ahosiṃdevānam indo. Anekasattakkhattuṃ rājā ahosiṃ Cakkavattī dhammiko dhammarājā cāturanto vijitāvī janapadatthāvariyappatto sattaratanasamannāgato.

At that time, renunciants, I was Brahmā, the Great Brahmā—the vanquisher, the unvanquished, the unique seer, and the dominating power. I was Sakka, Lord of gods, thirty-six times. Over many centuries, I held the position of Universal Monarch109, a ruler who exemplified the Dharma. I was the king of the Dharma, victorious over all opponents, the landlord of the four directions, and the possessor of the seven treasures.

The figures of Indra and Brahmā were described on their knees in front of the Buddha, begging him for spiritual alms. The discourse of Buddhist authors referred to their popularity, converting both Indra (SN i 233) and Brahmā (Brahmā Sahampati SN i 137, MN i 168, ii 93, Vin i 5) as his most lustrous followers of the Buddha, referred to as the one ‘who rises to win in war’ (Uṭṭhāhi vīra vijitasaṅgāma SN ii 233–234, MN i 169). The very same expression of ‘those heroes who rises to win the [spiritual] war’ (Uṭṭhāhi vīra vijitasaṅgāma) can be found as part of the cult to Former Buddhas (DN ii 38), who, in a similar manner were described as prepared soldiers, portraying the fusion of the image of the warriors’ divine prototype, personified by Indra, with the concept of the Universal Ruler (Tettiṃsakkhattuṃ rājā ca cakkavattī ahos’ ahaṃ Th Ap ii 377). Furthermore, it is evident that the attributes of the unvanquished conqueror (jitañjayo) and the hero (vīra/sūro), defined by braveness (vikkama), were associated in the same discourse (Th Ap ii 354), in which yodhājīva was employed to praise the Buddhas.

Th Ap ii 354 (Lilley, 2000, p. 354)

Khaggahatthā ca purisā cāpahatthā ca vammino luddā vijitasaṅgāmā sabbe sannipatuṃ tadā. (…) khamā sītassa uṇhassa ukkārūharaṇassa ca. yodhājīvā katakammā sabbe sannipatuṃ tadā.

‘Men with swords in their hands, armed with bows and armor110, the fierce victorious heroes of the [spiritual] battle, all gather. (…) [Those who are] resilient to cold and hot, who have grown as if forged by a blacksmith, true warriors by their conduct, all gather’.

The negotiations of the terminology discussed in this paper seem to have derived from the direct contact and exchange of warriors and Brahmins from a diverse Aryan context converted to Buddhism in the process of praising the Buddha. These inspiring ideas conquered the way in which Buddhists remembered the Buddha and his followers, spreading the ideals of Aryan warriors, over the frontiers of Indian thought111. Many allegories of war through Buddhist scriptures denote an interest in alleging that Buddhists are the warrior leaders of religious enterprises. In this regard, the advocacy of Buddhists as followers of the Universal Monarch and their references to the Three Knowledges (tevijjā)112 was not casual, nor a simple counterattack to Brahmanical thought, but an expression of them to legitimate their religious tradition, in a debate under Brahmanical influence.

evam vijitasaṅgāmaṃ, satthavāham anuttaraṃ, sāvakā payirūpāsanti, tevijjā maccuhāyino, sabbe Bhagavato puttā, palāpettha na vijjati, taṇhāsallassa hantāraṃ, vande ādiccabandhunan ti.

(SN i 192, Th 1245–1246)

‘Just in this way, the noble disciples [who] revere the unsurpassed caravan leader, who have overcome death by the Three Knowledges, the conquerors of the [spiritual] battle; all of them, sons of the Blessed One—none of them worthless—, bow to the Kinsman of the Sun, destroyer of the arrow of desire’.

These stanzas were well known among many generations of Buddhists and spread the conception of famous disciples of the Buddha as Sāriputta as the vanguard of the spiritual conquest which Buddhist believed, they had won.

Tathā vijītasaṃgrāmaṃ sārthavāham anuttaram, upāsate śravakāstvā traividyāmṛtyuhāyina. Putrās te sarva evaite plāvī113 hy atra na vidyate hartāraṁ sarva śalyānāṁ vande tvādityabāndhavam (PS 6–7).

(Hoernle, 1916: pp. 36–40)

‘Thus, [you], conqueror of the battlefield, the unsurpassed caravan-leader, you, worshipped by your disciples, [you are] the destroyer of death by the Three Knowledges. All of them are your sons, because in this matter, no one of them remains uncrossing to the other side. I salute you, the kinsman of the sun, the remover of all afflictions!

Other Chinese translations demonstrate how this tradition of Buddhists (transmitted allegedly from the Buddha to Sāriputta SN i 191) of presenting themselves as followers of an ancient religious lineage of spiritual warriors was inherited. In a Chinese version (解夏經 T63) related to the above Sanskrit version of these verses in the PS, it can be seen the relevance of famous Brahmins, as Sāriputta, in the transmission of this advocacy (尊者舍利弗與諸苾芻。聞佛宣説解夏之法), which refers clearly to all the disciples of the Buddha as ‘his sons’ (佛子皆如是), ‘who embodied the Three Knowledges’ 聲聞得三明, ‘warriors who have triumphed in the [spiritual] battle’ (如戰得勝), presented as the very ‘best’ 最上114 representatives of the King of the Dharma 法王 (T63.1.862a23-29). Similar allegories about war (鬪戰之法 T100.2.397b25), attributed traditionally to the authoritative voice of the Buddha, were transmitted in sinograms, clearly in the midst of debating whose religious tradition practitioners are the most legitimate to be considered ‘field of merit’ (福田) (T100.2.397b27). It is obvious that the discourse of Buddhists Brahmins, under the influence of the Vrātya culture, as an important remnant of the impact of the first Aryans in the religious context of Magadha115influenced significantly the way in which the metaphors on war, spread and was presented, also, presumably, to convince powerful rulers in the context of Chinese-speaking kingdoms.

4. Conclusions

The content of several narratives of the Canon could probably be traced back to the Buddha himself, who seems to have had a certain preference for introducing metaphors, also related with the context of warfare, with the intention of convincing his audience. We can assume that some of the war allegories analyzed in this paper were influential in the way his followers remembered the Buddha’s sermons. Allegories of war appear to have significantly influenced not only the conversion of warriors to Buddhism but also the inversion of many war concerns in the context of the religions of Magadha. As a matter of fact, Brahminism, Buddhism, and Jainism were ideological competitors, as obviously their narratives on war portray themselves, in the contest for the patronage of powerful kings116. Over the course of more than a thousand years, they were engaged in a campaign of presenting themselves in terms that involved appropriations and counter-appropriations of religious terminology and significant ideas. In this regard, the appropriation of royal symbols, but especially the connection of presenting the Buddha and his followers as the most iconic warriors of all time, seems to convey the complex transformation and continuous reformulation of Buddhist thought, aiming to secure powerful patronage. The pattern I claim in this paper is clear. The tendency of praising the Buddha and his disciples in terms that infer a clear influence of Brahminical thought, inferring the fusion, the Vrātya culture with the RV orthodoxy117, converging in praising the Buddha: a similar pattern to how Buddhists reinterpreted literally many of the Buddha’s allusions to Brahminical terminology (Villamor, 2026c) [36].

The allegories of war in the tradition of the Nikāyas of the Pāli Canon and Jain thought contain many allusions to war in a metaphorical sense, a terminology that was especially negotiated with references to Brahmanical motifs, as I discussed in this paper. The references to war in the Canon can be classified into three groups. As possible explanations of the Buddha on war, we can find (1) literal references condemning war, and (2) metaphors with new meanings borrowed to promote asceticism. However, there are many other passages where these terms are reinterpreted to distinguish the Buddhist community from other religious groups. I consider this group of terminology from the warriors’ culture as (3) terms used to praise the Buddha, his teachings, or his followers. The reminiscence of these ideas teaches us about the complex and diverse path in which the image of the Buddha was constructed. In their attempt at achieving royal patronage, the ascetic religions of Magadha negotiated many warrior ideals in terms of a battle, inverting the connotation of warfare for spiritual practice. However, the discourse of war in the Canon portrays not only metaphors, but literal efforts of great intensity, part of an ideological campaign in which the ideals of Aryan warriors among ascetics responded diversely to the necessity of adopting the religious framework of Brahminical thought. The transmission of Buddhism in time, as can be noticed also in Chinese early translations related with the allegories to war discussed in this paper, reflects the significance of representing Buddhist values in terms of a Brahmanized warrior culture, obviously, negotiated over centuries through several important factors and ideals118 of the Vrātya culture of Magadha.

In this paper, I argue that worshipping the Buddha through terms related to war not only suggests the conversion of warrior values into ascetic traditions but also the negotiation of these concepts with a complex and diverse Brahmanical background. It is reasonable to assume that warriors who converted to Buddhism played an important role in the reconstruction of the Buddha’s teachings, which appears to have significantly influenced the development of the narratives and terminology used in his worship, that was transmitted with Buddhism among many kingdoms. The inclusion of many Brahmanical terms in the Canon, such as yodhājīva, reflects the dynamic exchange of ideas between converted warriors and Brahmins. Together, they constructed an important framework of parables and expressions to refer to war from the perspective of transmitting the teachings of the Buddha, with the aim of obtaining the acquiescence of powerful rulers. This combination of viewpoints was intended to honor the Buddha as the greatest warrior and supreme conqueror. By adopting this posture, Buddhist followers continuously attempted to position themselves as the legitimate heirs of the(ir) Ultimate Supreme Being: the Buddha.