Religions of South Asia 3.

1 (2009) 25-43 ISSN (print) 1751-2689

doi:10.1558/rosa.v3i1.25 ISSN (online) 1751-2697

Rivals and Benefactors: Encounters between

Buddhists and Brahmins in the Nikāyas
BRIAN BLACK
Department of Religions Studies
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Lancaster University
Lancaster LA1 4YD
UK
b.black@lancaster.ac.uk

ABSTRACT: This paper will examine the portrayal of Brahmins in the Ambaṭṭha,
Soṇadaṇḍa, and Kūṭadanta Suttas. As I will argue, the Brahmin characters in these
suttas emerge as complexly ambivalent figures who are depicted, simultaneously,
as competitors for royal patronage and as potential benefactors. Considering
Brahmin characters in this way, I hope to offer some fresh insights into the teach-
ings of these texts and into the imagined audiences of the composers.

KEYWORDS: Brahmanism, Buddhism, Nikayas, sutta, Upanishads, Vedas.

INTRODUCTION

Encounters between Buddhists and Brahmins are an important aspect of

early Buddhist literature. In the Dīgha Nikāya, nine of the thirty-four suttas
feature a verbal exchange between the Buddha and a prominent Brahmin
(Manné 1992: 136); similarly, all ten suttas in the Brāhmaṇavagga section of
the Majjhima Nikāya consist of dialogues between Buddhists and Brahmins.
While there are a number of similar themes that appear throughout these
episodes, at the outset it is important to acknowledge that ‘Brahmin’ is not
a monolithic category. As Ryūtarō Tsuchida has demonstrated, there are
primarily two categories of Brahmins in the early Buddhist sources: (1) the
wealthy Vedic masters who live in villages and towns; and (2) the ascetics
with matted hair who live in ashrams (1991: 53). Moreover, as Tsuchida shows,
Buddhist attitudes towards these two groups of Brahmins are quite different,
with interactions with wealthy Brahmins often having a ‘harsh sarcastic tone’
(1991: 86) and with encounters with Brahmin ascetics tending to have more of
a ‘peaceful atmosphere’ (1991: 86).
In this paper, I will focus on scenes featuring the first category of Brahmins,
particularly as portrayed in the Ambaṭṭha, Soṇadaṇḍa, and Kūṭadanta Suttas.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010, 1 Chelsea Manor Studios, Flood Street, London SW3 5SR.
26 religions of south asia

These three suttas appear consecutively in the Dīgha Nikāya and have a
number of literary features in common. Moreover, taken together they make
a three-pronged attack on the Brahmanical tradition, questioning the status
of Brahmins, the authority of the Vedas, and the practice of sacrifice. I will
approach these three suttas with the following questions in mind: What are
some of the literary features that these episodes share with each other and
with other suttas that depict wealthy Brahmins? What is at stake in these
discussions? How is the relationship between Buddhists and Brahmins por-
trayed? What might these portrayals tell us about the relationship between
Buddhists and Brahmins in ancient India?
As we will see, while episodes featuring verbal exchanges between the
Buddha and wealthy Brahmins are often characterized in terms of debate and
competition, these scenes are not as denunciatory, nor are they as dismissive,
of Brahmanism as they might appear to be. As such, the wealthy Brahmin in
the Nikāyas emerges as a complexly ambivalent figure who is depicted, simul-
taneously, as a competitor for royal patronage and as a potential benefactor.
The complexity in the portrayal of Brahmins not only supports Tsuchida’s
claim that there was more than one type of Brahmin represented in Buddhist
sources, but also indicates, as Oliver Freiberger has suggested (1998), that
there were different strategies among Buddhists concerning how to charac-
terize their relationships with Brahmins.

BRIEF SUMMARIES

Before exploring these issues, first I will briefly summarize each of these
three suttas.

Ambaṭṭha Sutta1

The Ambaṭṭha Sutta begins by recounting that once, when the Buddha was
travelling with five hundred monks in the region of Kosala, he stayed at a place
near where the Brahmin Pokkharasāti lived. This place was very prosperous,
‘full of grass, timber, water, and corn’ (DN 3.1.1).2 Pokkharasāti had been given
this land as a royal gift (brahmadeyya) from King Pasenadi of Kosala.
One day, in order to confirm reports he hears about the Buddha as a fully
enlightened being, Pokkharasāti sends his student Ambaṭṭha to visit the
Buddha and look for the 32 marks of a great man (mahāpurisa).3 Ambaṭṭha

1. For a detailed comparison of the Ambaṭṭha Sutta with a similar story that appears in the
Upaniṣads, see Black (forthcoming).
2. Translations of passages from the Dīgha Nikāya are from Walshe (1995); translations from
the Majjhima Nikāya are from Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi (1995).
3. The full list of the 32 marks appears in the Lakkhaṇa Sutta (DN 30), as well as the Mahāpadāna

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.

 BLACK   Rivals and Benefactors 27

approaches the Buddha politely, but soon begins to act rudely. Ambaṭṭha’s
behaviour initiates a long discussion about class, during which he claims that
the Brahmins are the superior of the four classes. The Buddha responds by
invoking his ability to remember ancestral lineages to claim that Ambaṭṭha
is descended from a slave-girl of the Sakyans, concluding that the class
relation between them is actually the inverse of what the young Brahmin had
claimed.4 Then the Buddha asks Ambaṭṭha directly whether he has heard this
account of his lineage from his own teachers, warning him that if he does
not answer this fundamental (sahadhammika) question his head will split into
seven pieces. Here, not only does the Buddha, with his ability to remember
ancestral lineages, expose the impurity of Ambaṭṭha’s family pedigree, but
he also makes the accusation that Ambaṭṭha and his teachers are aware that
their claim to superiority is false, but are knowingly suppressing the truth. It
is also notable that at this point in their discussion the Buddha employs the
threat of head-shattering—a threat that often appears in debating episodes in
the Upaniṣads.5
After this episode the Buddha, observing that the Brahmins in the audience
are humiliating Ambaṭṭha, defends the young Brahmin in front of them, indi-
cating that the Buddha merely wants to make Ambaṭṭha own up to the truth,
rather than to embarrass or punish him in front of his colleagues. Neverthe-
less, the Buddha is not finished questioning Ambaṭṭha’s views about class, and
he resumes his challenge by posing a series of questions about how to distin-
guish the class status of the offspring of a khattiya and a Brahmin in a number
of hypothetical situations. In the face of the Buddha’s questions, Ambaṭṭha is
unable to maintain his position of the superiority of the Brahmins.
After further interrogating Ambaṭṭha, the Buddha invites the young
Brahmin to ask him questions. However, rather than question him verbally,
Ambaṭṭha is more interested in looking for the 32 marks. Initially, he sees all
of them except the sheathed genitals and the large tongue. The Buddha, real-
izing that Ambaṭṭha is looking for these two marks, shows the young Brahmin
his sheathed genitals by means of his ‘psychic power’ (iddhabhisaṃkhāra) (DN
3.2.12). At this point, with one more mark for Ambaṭṭha to determine, the
Buddha reveals his elongated tongue by displaying his ability to lick both

Sutta (DN 14.1.32) and the Brahmāyu Sutta (MN 91.9). The Sela Sutta (MN 92) also depicts a
Brahmin seeking out the 32 marks on the Buddha’s body, but does not contain a list of the
marks.
4. According to Bronkhorst, the Sankritized version of Ambaṭṭha’s name is Ambaṣṭha, which
refers to someone who has a Brahmin father and a non-Brahmin mother. As Bronkhorst
suggests: ‘The author of this story chose the name Ambaṭṭha/Ambaṣṭha, because he knew
that someone of that name was of mixed descent. Moreover, cultivated early listeners to the
story would know, right from the beginning, that Ambaṭṭha was not what he claimed to be,
viz., a pure-blooded brahmin’ (2007: 354–55).
5. For discussions about the trope of the shattered head see Witzel (1987), Insler (1989–90),
Black (2007a: 64–65, 80–88).

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.

28 religions of south asia

ears and his forehead. After this incident, Ambaṭṭha asks to go and returns
to Pokkharasāti, reporting that the Buddha indeed has 32 marks and recount-
ing all that has transpired. His teacher reacts angrily, criticizes Ambaṭṭha’s
behaviour, and then kicks him.
Subsequently, Pokkharasāti decides he wants to see the Buddha for himself.
When he arrives, Pokkharasāti exchanges courtesies with the Buddha and sits
to one side of him, asking him a number of questions about his conversation
with Ambaṭṭha. Upon hearing the Buddha’s account, Pokkharasāti apologizes
for the behaviour of his student and asks the Buddha to pardon him. Then,
Pokkharasāti looks for the 32 marks, only able to observe the final two when
the Buddha reveals them in the same way he did for Ambaṭṭha.
At this point Pokkharasāti invites the Buddha for a meal that he later per-
sonally serves to him. After their meal, Pokkharasāti sits on a stool beside the
Buddha and listens to him deliver a talk on the four noble truths. Pokkharasāti
acquires the Dhamma-eye and responds: ‘Excellent, Lord, excellent! It is as if
someone were to set up what had been knocked down, or to point out the way
to one who had got lost, or to bring an oil-lamp tin to a dark place, so that
those with eyes could see what was there’ (DN 3.2.22). At the end, Pokkharasāti
declares himself, his family, and his followers as lay supporters (upāsaka),
promising that at any time in the future the Buddha can visit his household
and be served food.

Soṇadaṇḍa Sutta

The Soṇadaṇḍa Sutta begins in almost exactly the same way as the Ambaṭṭha
Sutta. Once again the Buddha is travelling with five hundred monks, this time
in the Anga region and once again he stays in an area overseen by a well known
and wealthy Brahmin. This time the Brahmin is Soṇadaṇḍa, who has been
given land by King Bimbisāra of Magadha as a royal gift (brahmadeyya). One
day, while relaxing on his terrace, Soṇadaṇḍa hears reports that the Buddha
is a fully enlightened being. Indeed, he hears the same exact description that
Pokkharasāti had heard.
Rather than send a student on his behalf, as Pokkharasāti had done,
Soṇadaṇḍa decides to go himself, but when his followers learn of this, they
advise him not to go. Soṇadaṇḍa finally persuades them and they all set
out to meet the Buddha. On the way, however, Soṇadaṇḍa begins to have
concerns that he will not be able to answer the Buddha’s questions and will
consequently lose his reputation. Soṇadaṇḍa’s doubts recur when he is in the
presence of the Buddha, who, reading his mind, questions him ‘from his own
field as a teacher of the three Vedas’ (DN 4.11), asking him about the quali-
ties of a Brahmin. At first Soṇadaṇḍa lists five qualities: (1) well-born on both
mother’s and father’s side; of pure descent for seven generations; (2) a scholar
versed in mantras; (3) handsome and pleasing; (4) virtuous; and (5) learned

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.

 BLACK   Rivals and Benefactors 29

and wise, and is the first to hold the sacrificial ladle.6 However, the Buddha
challenges Soṇadaṇḍa by asking if all five qualities are essential, or if, perhaps,
some could be left out. Soṇadaṇḍa agrees that not all five are equally neces-
sary and the discussion carries on until only two qualities remain: (4) virtuous
and (5) learned. At this point his own followers begin to question Soṇadaṇḍa,
accusing him of adopting the words of the Buddha. Finally, Soṇadaṇḍa is not
able to define either quality, so he asks the Buddha to define them for him.
The Buddha responds by announcing his own qualities as a Buddha,
and then by defining the two qualities that make up a Brahmin in terms
of Buddhist practice. Soṇadaṇḍa responds with the same refrain used by
Pokkharasāti, comparing the Buddha’s discourse to setting upright what had
been knocked down. He then asks to become a lay supporter and offers a meal
to the Buddha. After their meal, Soṇadaṇḍa sits on a stool beside the Buddha
and expresses his concerns about his reputation: ‘If when I have gone into the
assembly I were to rise and salute the Lord, the company would despise me.
In that case my reputation would suffer, and if a man’s reputation suffers, his
income suffers’ (DN 4.26). He then explains that, although he acknowledges
the Buddha’s superiority in private, he will not rise to greet the Buddha in an
assembly, nor will he bow at his feet, but that when he instead joins his palms
or takes off his turban, the Buddha should take it as if Soṇadaṇḍa had shown
his full respect. Then the Buddha delivers a talk on Dhamma.

Kūṭadanta Sutta

The Kūṭadanta Sutta begins the same way as the previous two. The Buddha
is once again travelling with about five hundred monks, but this time in
Magadha, where he arrives at a Brahmin village (brāhmaṇagāma) called
Khānumata. The name of the Brahmin who oversees this village is Kūṭadanta,
who had received it as a royal gift (brahmadeyya) from King Bimbisāra.
After this familiar opening, Kūṭadanta announces his plans to hold a great
sacrifice (mahāyañña). Then the local Brahmins and householders hear the
familiar report about the Buddha’s status as a fully enlightened being. One
day, while relaxing on his terrace, Kūṭadanta sees crowds of Brahmins and
householders travelling to see the Buddha. He then declares to his minister
that he will go to the Buddha and ask him about the triple sacrifice with its 16
requisites.
When the several hundred Brahmins staying with him find out about this
plan, they, like the Brahmin followers of Soṇadaṇḍa, attempt to convince
Kūṭadanta not to go. Kūṭadanta uses the same argument as Soṇadaṇḍa to

6. As Tsuchida points out (1991: 63–64), the first four qualities also appear in the list of attri-
butes found earlier in the sutta (DN 4.5), and in other suttas (e.g. Kūṭadanta Sutta DN 5.6; Cankī
Sutta MN 95.8).

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.

30 religions of south asia

convince his followers, and, together, they all go to see the Buddha. When
Kūṭadanta asks the Buddha about the sacrifice, the Buddha responds by
telling him the story of King Mahāvijita, who also wanted to conduct a great
sacrifice. But, in the Buddha’s story, the king, following the advice of his court
priest, ends up hosting a sacrifice where no animals are killed, no trees are cut
down, no grass is cut, and no workers are exploited; and after the sacrifice,
the king gives away all the wealth. When the Buddha finishes this story, all the
Brahmins in attendance shout loudly in appreciation, except for Kūṭadanta,
who remains silent. When the Brahmins ask him why he did not appreciate
the Buddha’s words, he replies: ‘It is not that I do not applaud them. My head
would have split open if I did not’ (DN 5.21).
Kūṭadanta then remarks that the Buddha had told this tale as if he had
been an eyewitness of these events, prompting the Buddha to admit that
he had been King Mahāvijita’s court priest in a former life. The Brahmin
then asks the Buddha a series of questions about what constitutes the most
fruitful and profitable sacrifice. This leads finally to the Buddha announcing
his qualities as a fully enlightened being. Kūṭadanta responds by asking to
be a lay supporter and setting free the animals intended for the sacrifice.
The Buddha then teaches him the four noble truths. Kūṭadanta acquires
the Dhamma-eye and then invites the Buddha for a meal. After their meal,
Kūṭadanta sits on a stool beside the Buddha and listens to him deliver a talk
on Dhamma.

DISCUSSION

As we can see, a number of the same passages appear in each of these three
suttas: the opening formula, which states where the Buddha is travelling,
names the wealthy Brahmin, and mentions the royal gift of land from the king;
the listing of the Buddha’s qualities; the listing of the Brahmin’s qualities; the
discussion between the Buddha and the Brahmin; the Brahmin’s declaration
that the Buddha has set up what had been knocked down; the Brahmin serving
a meal to the Buddha; and the declaration of lay support. In addition to their
inclusion in the Ambaṭṭha, Soṇadaṇḍa, and Kūṭadanta Suttas, many of these
passages also appear in other encounters between Buddhists and Brahmins in
the Dīgha and Majjhima Nikāyas (see Manné 1990). As Tsuchida has remarked:
‘the Sutta-authors seem to have composed their narratives about particular
Brahmins by simply arranging several ready-made prose units and redact-
ing them with minor alterations and additions of some new material into a
coherent story’ (1991: 53–54). In other words, while each sutta might describe
a unique episode between the Buddha and a particular Brahmin, there also
appears to be a general narrative model, as well as a number of specific literary
conventions, employed by Buddhist authors and editors for describing verbal
exchanges between Buddhists and wealthy Brahmins.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.

 BLACK   Rivals and Benefactors 31

Opposing Brahmanism

One of the common features among many of these suttas is the portrayal of
wealthy Brahmins as specialists in Vedic knowledge. Ambaṭṭha, Soṇadaṇḍa,
and Kūṭadanta are all described using the same stock passage: ‘a scholar,
versed in the mantras, accomplished in the Three Vedas, a skilled expounder
of the rules and rituals, the lore of sounds and meanings and, fifthly, oral tra-
dition—an expounder, fully versed in natural philosophy and the marks of a
Great Man’ (DN 3.1.3; 4.5; 5.6).7 In each case, however, this seemingly positive
portrayal of Vedic erudition sets up a contrast with the ignorance of the
Brahmin when compared to the wisdom of the Buddha.
Moreover, this contrast is made more explicit by the fact that the primary
topic of their discussions is not one of the Buddha’s own teachings, but an
aspect of the Brahmanical tradition. The principal subject matter of the
Ambaṭṭha Sutta is class hierarchy, with the Buddha challenging Ambaṭṭha’s
claim for the superiority of Brahmins’ status by illustrating that such asser-
tions are based on false pretences. Throughout their exchange, as I have
argued elsewhere (forthcoming), the Buddha adopts a number of debating
techniques that are more typical of Brahmins, such as employing the head-
shattering threat, appealing to the testimony of ancient verses, and invoking
the authority of Vedic sages, most of whom are identifiable with composers
of hymns in the Ṛgveda.
The qualities of a true Brahmin are the topic of the Soṇadaṇḍa Sutta, with
the Buddha showing that he knows the characteristics of Brahminhood better
than Soṇadaṇḍa. Soṇadaṇḍa’s inability to answer the Buddha’s questions is
not only contrasted with his description as an erudite Brahmin, but also with
the Buddha’s concession only to ask him questions from the three Vedas, the
Brahmin’s own field of expertise. While Soṇadaṇḍa can list the qualities of a
true Brahmin, he cannot define them—one of the possible implications being
that his Vedic knowledge only amounts to remembering the texts, but not
to understanding their meaning. By the end of the sutta, Soṇadaṇḍa comes
across more negatively than either Pokkharasāti or Kūṭadanta, as his concern
with explaining to the Buddha why he will not bow down before him in public
seems to interrupt his chance to learn the four noble truths—the teaching
that the Buddha shares with the other two. Consequently, Soṇadaṇḍa does
not gain the ‘pure and spotless Dhamma-eye’, while both Pokkharasāti and
Kūṭadanta do.
Whereas the Ambaṭṭha and Soṇadaṇḍa Suttas address the status of Brahmins
and their knowledge, the Kūṭadanta Sutta is primarily about sacrifice (yañña),
the central practice of Brahmanism. Kūṭadanta approaches the Buddha for
advice on how to perform a sacrifice, thus implying that the Buddha knows
more about Vedic practices than wealthy Brahmins do. The Buddha then

7. Although in the Ambaṭṭha Sutta there is slight variation because Ambaṭṭha is still a student.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.

32 religions of south asia

characterizes the Vedic sacrifice as excessively violent and destructive, not

only because of the many animals that are slaughtered, but also because of
the trees and the grass that are cut. He also describes the suffering of the
slaves and labourers who are threatened and beaten if they do not do their
work. At the end of their discussion, the Buddha tells Kūṭadanta that Buddhist
practice is the most fruitful and profitable sacrifice (DN 5.27).
A recurring criticism in these accounts is that Brahmins are decadent. They
continue to enjoy a privileged lifestyle, despite the fallacies of their claims
to higher social status and the inadequacies of their knowledge of their own
tradition. In the Ambaṭṭha Sutta the Buddha accuses Brahmins of not living up
to the standards of older generations,8 pointing out to Ambaṭṭha that today’s
Brahmins enjoy themselves, bathe regularly, wear perfume, trim their hair
and beards, adorn themselves with garlands and wreaths, and indulge in plea-
sures of the five senses (DN 3.2.8-10).9 He also accuses them of eating fine
food, amusing themselves with women, riding on chariots pulled by deco-
rated horses, and living in ‘fortified towns’ (nagarūpakārikā) (DN 3.2.9-10).10
That the Brahmins are more concerned about wealth and social standing than
wisdom comes across vividly in the figure of Soṇadaṇḍa (DN 4.26).
As all three suttas suggest, the narrative portrayals of encounters between
the Buddha and Brahmins serve as opportunities to articulate criticisms of
Brahmins and their practices. By exposing the Brahmins’ false claims to a pure
birth, their lack of knowledge of their own tradition, and their cruel treat-
ment of humans and animals in performing their rituals, these episodes chal-
lenge the three-fold foundation of the Brahmanical tradition: the Brahmins,
the Vedas, and the Vedic sacrifice.

Repositioning Brahmanism

But while each of these suttas challenges aspects of Brahmanism, the Buddhist
attitude towards wealthy Brahmins and their practices is much more complex
than a straightforward rejection. As we will see, a number of suttas suggest
that Brahmanism played a vital role in validating the claims of the Buddhist
tradition.
One of the recurring criticisms launched against Brahmins is that they
are superstitious; they are interested in magic, divination, and supernatu-
ral forces. In the Brahmajāla Sutta the Buddha tells his followers that some
ascetics and Brahmins make a living through ‘base arts’ (tiracchānavijjā), such

8. This technique of comparing the practices of Brahmins in the present with idealized
accounts of how Brahmins behaved in the past is a recurring rhetorical strategy in Pāli
literature. See Freiberger’s paper in this volume.
9. A similar critique of Brahmin decadence appears in the Brahmajāla Sutta (1.1.12-20).
10. If we agree with Bodewitz (1974: 90) that chariots were the ‘luxury cars’ of the Vedic elite,
then we might think of fortified towns as ancient India’s gated communities.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.

 BLACK   Rivals and Benefactors 33

as ‘palmistry, divining by signs, portents, dreams, [and] body-marks’ (DN

1.1.21). Similarly, in the Kevaddha Sutta, the Buddha articulates his disapproval
of using the ‘miracles’ (pāṭihāriya) of psychic power and telepathy.
Despite disapproving of such practices and associating them with Brahmins,
the Buddha nevertheless uses his encounters with Brahmins as occasions to
display his own special powers. In the Ambaṭṭha Sutta he uses his knowledge of
ancestral lineages to argue that Ambaṭṭha is not being truthful about his own
family background; and he employs his ‘psychic powers’ (iddhabhisaṃkhāra)
to reveal to both Ambaṭṭha and Pokkharasāti the last two of his 32 marks.11 In
the Soṇadaṇḍa Sutta he reads the Brahmin’s thoughts12 to learn of his insecu-
rities; and in the Kūṭadanta Sutta he uses his memory of past lives to tell the
story of King Mahāvijita.
We might take these episodes as part of the negative portrayal of Brah-
mins—that because they trade in ‘base arts’ Brahmins are far more likely to
be persuaded by the Buddha’s special powers than by one of his teachings.
However, there also seems to be a tacit admission that the universal appeal of
the Buddha is predicated upon his ability to display his special status in external
and demonstrative ways. The importance of Brahmins as experts in such ‘base
arts’ comes across clearly in the treatment of the 32 marks. Although they do
not appear in any extant Vedic text, the 32 marks are strongly associated with
the Brahmins in the Nikāyas. Besides the Ambaṭṭha Sutta, both the Brahmāyu
and Sela Suttas are devoted to the topic of Brahmins looking for the Buddha’s
marks, while the stock passage used to describe the education of Ambaṭṭha
(DN 3.1.3), Soṇadaṇḍa (DN 4.5), and Kūṭadanta (DN 5.6), as well as many other
central Brahmin characters in both the Dīgha and Majjhima Nikāyas,13 includes
knowledge of the 32 marks. Similarly, in the Buddhist hagiographies it is a
Brahmin who establishes the 32 marks of a Buddha. In the Mahāpadāna Sutta,
for example, it is the Brahmin ‘fortune tellers’ (nemitta) who examine the
body of Prince Vippasī to determine that he has the 32 marks of a great man
(mahāpurisa) (DN 14.1.31).
Considering the importance that the Brahmins—allegedly—place on the 32
marks, these scenes demonstrate that the Buddha’s greatness can be verified
with Brahmanical criteria, with the recurring list of their academic credentials
implying that the ability to recognize the greatness of the Buddha constitutes
a core aspect of any learned Brahmin’s education. However, by characterizing
them as experts in the 32 marks, the Buddhist sources also portray Brahmins
as having the unique ability to determine the status of the Buddha. As such,
while these scenes present the Buddha as superior to Brahmins in observable

11. The Buddha uses his powers to reveal his marks to other Brahmins as well. See the Brahmāyu
(MN 91.7) and Sela Suttas (MN 92.14).
12. Similarly, the Buddha reads the thoughts of Kāpaṭhika in the Cankī Sutta (MN 95.12).
13. Brahmāyu (MN 91.2), Uttara (MN 91.4), Sela (MN 92.5), Assalāyana (MN 93.3), Cankī (MN 95.5),
Kāpathika (MN 95.11) and Sangārava (MN 100.3) all know the 32 marks.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.

34 religions of south asia

ways, they also, to a certain extent, render the Buddha’s status as a ‘great
man’ dependent upon the verification of educated Brahmins.14
A similar combination of criticism and tacit acceptance of the Brahmani-
cal tradition comes across in the Kūṭadanta Sutta. As we have seen, Kūṭadanta
goes to the Buddha for advice on how to perform a Vedic sacrifice. Although
this seemingly points to the Brahmin’s ignorance of his own practices, it is not
entirely clear if Kūṭadanta is expected to know how to perform this sacrifice.
At the end of his account of King Mahāvijita, who is advised by his household
priest to perform a bloodless sacrifice, the Buddha reveals that he was this
very priest in a past life. By linking himself with the priest, the Buddha also
creates a structural parallel between Kūṭadanta and King Mahāvijita. As such,
Kūṭadanta takes the role of the paradigmatic royal yajamāna, whose responsi-
bility it is to sponsor the sacrifice, not to perform it.
Moreover, the critique of the sacrifice itself is not particularly harsh. While
the Buddha suggests that Buddhist practice is the most fruitful and profitable
sacrifice, his story about King Mahāvihita concedes that a Brahmanical sac-
rifice, as long as it replaces animal offerings with vegetables, will lead to the
heavenly world (5.21). As Freiberger comments: ‘By substituting one element
(the killing of animals), the sacrifice would bring rich results and the gods
would be pleased. We can conclude that with this view, sacrifice is tolerated
to a certain extent’ (1998: 42). Tsuchida takes this to suggest that the Buddha
‘had no intention of abolishing śrauta-rites’ (1991: 75), but rather incorpo-
rated Brahmanical practices within Buddhist ones.15
Of the portrayals of Brahmins in our three suttas, the depiction of Soṇadaṇḍa
appears to be the most scathing. He is insecure before meeting the Buddha;
he is not able to answer questions from his own field of expertise, and—even
when privately acknowledging the Buddha’s superiority—he will not agree
to salute the Buddha with the proper reverence, instead insisting that if he
were to do this, he might lose the respect of his own followers. Undoubtedly,
Soṇadaṇḍa comes across quite negatively, but it is perhaps revealing that the
Buddha defends Soṇadaṇḍa in front of his followers—as he defends Ambaṭṭha
in front of his colleagues—and then does not object to the Brahmin’s refusal
to bow down to him in public. The Buddha’s defence of both Soṇadaṇḍa and
Ambaṭṭha implies that, even while criticizing Brahmanism, he is hesitant to
humiliate individual Brahmins in public, perhaps indicating that without
the support of their colleagues or followers Brahmins such as Ambaṭṭha or
Soṇadaṇḍa would be less important allies. We will return to the importance
of Brahmanical support below, when we discuss the implications of the status
of Pokkharasāti, Soṇadaṇḍa, and Kūṭadanta as landowners.

14. There may be a link here with the god Brahmā authorizing the Buddha’s teachings. See
Michael Nichols’s paper in this volume.
15. A similar attempt to redefine sacrifice appears in the Sela Sutta, when Keṇija’s meal for the
Buddha is equated with a great sacrifice (mahāyañña) (MN 92.8).

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.

 BLACK   Rivals and Benefactors 35

The Buddha’s reluctance to demean his Brahmin opponents in public is

reiterated at the end of the Soṇadaṇḍa Sutta, when he tacitly agrees to allow
Soṇadaṇḍa to choose his own method of salutation. As a consequence,
Soṇadaṇḍa can claim to be a lay supporter despite not changing any of
his behaviour as a Brahmin. As we will discuss below, there are reasons to
be cautious about characterizing the exchange between the Buddha and
Soṇadaṇḍa as a debate, but if we were to take this episode as competitive,
then we might suggest that Soṇadaṇḍa comes out ahead at the end of the
encounter: despite being exposed as ignorant, the Brahmin gets to dictate the
terms of their relationship.
All three suttas, rather than reject Brahmanism, re-inscribe it in Buddhist
terms: the status of Brahmin is redefined in terms of the qualities of a
Buddha;16 aspects of Vedic knowledge are redeployed to verify the Buddha’s
enlightened status; and the Vedic sacrifice is re-constituted as a Buddhist
practice.17 As Tsuchida suggests: ‘the Buddha seldom categorically denies
the social institutions and religious ideas current among the Brahmin house-
holders. What he severely criticizes is their external extravagance and their
mental attitude rather than the traditional concepts to which they adhere’
(1991: 75). Bailey and Mabbett describe this same process as ‘the Buddhist
habit of redefining brāhmaṇical terms in a new sense, subordinating the
original sense to the Buddhist conceptions without actually rejecting the
brāhmaṇical meaning’ (2003: 122).

What is at Stake? Brahmins as Rivals and Benefactors

While the suttas in the Nikāyas have often been referred to rather generally
as dialogues or discourses, Joy Manné has observed that, based on shared
formulaic passages, suttas tend to fall into three main categories: sermons,
debates, and consultations. According to Manné, the Ambaṭṭha, Soṇadaṇḍa,
and Kūṭadanta Suttas, as well as most of the other episodes we are considering
here, belong to the category of debate. Debate suttas, which Manné defines as
‘formal intellectual confrontation[s] in which one party challenges another in
a contest of religious knowledge’ (1990: 32), have a number of characteristics
in common, including two or more opponents; ‘a challenge; a refutation; and
an admission of defeat’ (1990: 45).18

16. This is a strategy that the Buddha employs on several occasions. As Collins describes it, ‘the
Buddha uses the designation “brahmin” to refer to one who lives according to Buddhist
values’ (1993: 319).
17. For further discussion on the representation of Brahmanical sacrifice in Pāli sources, see
Freiberger (1998).
18. The full list of common characteristics pointed out by Manné are: ‘a central character, most
usually the Buddha, and a statement of his credentials; an adversary, and a statement of his
credentials; a description of a location that functions to set the scene and the atmosphere;

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.

36 religions of south asia

The Ambaṭṭha Sutta is a good example of a debate sutta. Ambaṭṭha’s arrival

in the company of the Buddha begins with a challenge; there is a constant
interchange between the Brahmin and the Buddha, and, throughout, the
young Brahmin continues to defend Brahmanical positions. In addition to
these features, this sutta contains the well-known threat of the shattered
head, which, in the Upaniṣads, often serves as an indicator of a debate. As
I have discussed elsewhere (2007a: 80), this threat is a motif that appears in
most of the debating episode in the Brāhmaṇas and Upaniṣads, serving as
one of the literary elements differentiating debate episodes from dialogues
between teachers and students, as well as from dialogues between Brahmins
and kings. That this motif is often an indicator of a debate seems to coincide
with the general atmosphere of the Ambaṭṭha Sutta.
But while Manné has clearly demonstrated that there are a number of
shared characteristics among scenes featuring the Buddha’s interaction
with Brahmins—and that there is much use in examining these episodes as
a coherent category of sutta—I would hesitate to characterize all of these
encounters as ‘debates’. In several such scenes the Buddha is never challenged
and the Brahmins never offer a counter-argument to the Buddha’s criticisms.
The Kūṭadanta Sutta, for example, may at first appear to be a debate, particu-
larly because it also features the motif of head-shattering. Yet in this sutta
this motif is not employed as a threat, with the reference to head-shattering
made by Kūṭadanta himself, using the past conditional: ‘My head would have
split open if I had not [applauded the words of the Buddha]’ (DN 5.21). There
are also other features of the Kūṭadanta Sutta to suggest that it is not a debate.
Unlike Ambaṭṭha, for example, Kūṭadanta does not even attempt to chal-
lenge the Buddha, with his initial reason for going to him being to ask for his
advice on how to perform a great sacrifice. Throughout their entire exchange,
Kūṭadanta never offers any resistance to the Buddha’s position.
A number of other encounters between the Buddha and Brahmins are
equally tame, with the Buddha rarely being challenged and the Brahmins
only occasionally defending themselves. Soṇadaṇḍa seems to concede the
Buddha’s superiority even before their encounter. Similarly, Lohicca (DN 12)
invites the Buddha for a meal before meeting him; Sela (MN 92), after observ-
ing the Buddha’s 32 marks, attempts to verify the Buddha’s status through
praise, rather than interrogation. Instead of depicting rivalry or tension
between adversaries with different points of view, these episodes portray
Brahmins who are eager to seek out the Buddha and who recognize his supe-
riority without hesitation.19 Thus, while some encounters between Buddhists
and Brahmins do seem to represent an atmosphere of dramatic debate, others

an audience; a greeting ceremony; a challenge; a refutation of the adversary’s position; the

establishment of the Buddhist position; a hypothetical case history; a surrender, in the form
of an acceptance formula by the adversary; [and] a reward’ (1992: 117).
19. This is also similar to Somā in the Avadānaśataka. See Alice Collett’s paper in this volume.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.

 BLACK   Rivals and Benefactors 37

are more conversational than adversarial, with many of the wealthy Brahmin
characters seemingly cast as models of how to behave in the presence of the
Buddha.
There are, however, a number of specific occasions—in addition to the
Ambaṭṭha Sutta—where the Buddha enters an overtly confrontational exchange
with a Brahmin; Assalāyana (MN 93), Kāpaṭhika (MN 95), and Subha (MN 99)
all challenge the Buddha and defend Brahmanism against the Buddha’s criti-
cisms. Crucially, in these cases the Brahmin who debates the Buddha is a
young student, who has not yet finished his education. Moreover, the young
Brahmin is sent on behalf of or debating in front of an older, more estab-
lished Brahmin. Ambaṭṭha, for example, is humbled in his exchange with the
Buddha, paving the way for his teacher Pokkharasāti to approach the Buddha
with courtesy and respect. Similarly, Assalāyana, who is only 16 years old (MN
93.9) argues on behalf of five hundred Brahmins; Kāpaṭhika argues with the
Buddha while Cankī is in the audience; and Subha, who is the son of the well-
known Brahmin Todeyya and the student of Pokkharasāti, shares his praise of
the Buddha with the eminent Brahmin Jāṇussoṇi, after losing his debate. In
all these scenes, the Buddha explicitly defeats a young Brahmin who, in one
way or another, stands in for an elder Brahmin; in two of these episodes the
Buddha’s defeat of the young student leads explicitly to winning the favour of
the elder Brahmin. The repeated use of this scenario suggests that the defeat
of the young Brahmin is a literary strategy employed to criticize Brahman-
ism, without making senior Brahmins such as Pokkharasāti, Cankī, Todeyya,
and Jāṇussoṇi face humiliation by sparring with the Buddha directly.20 Yet it
is also possible to read these scenes as occasions where the Buddha picks on
an easy target, while avoiding direct confrontation with the more established
members of the Brahmin community—who, perhaps, would have been more
likely to wield stronger arguments.
Thus, while there is an element of competition and rivalry in some of these
scenes, there is also a tendency to defuse direct confrontation, particularly with
the most eminent Brahmins. As such, many of these episodes are not nearly
as antagonistic against Brahmins nor as favourable to the Buddhists as might
initially be assumed. While these scenes often portray Brahmins prostrating
themselves in front of the Buddha, they also tend to include compromise and
concession as integral aspects of the Buddha’s dealings with Brahmins. The
ambivalence of the Buddhist attitude towards Brahmins is linked to the fact
that while Brahmins were competitors for royal patronage, they were also so
well established as recipients of the king’s financial and social support that
they were themselves potential patrons.21 As we have seen, Pokkharasāti,

20. These individuals, along with Tārukkha, are sometimes listed together as particularly
renowned Brahmins (DN 13.2; MN 98.2, 99.13). While Jāṇussoṇi does appear as the Buddha’s
primary interlocutor on another occasion (MN 27), the others do not.
21. Findly also makes this point (2003: 55).

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.

38 religions of south asia

Soṇadaṇḍa, and Kūṭadanta are all landowners, each of their stories beginning
with descriptions of them as recipients of gifts of land (brahmadeyya) from a
prominent king.22 Romila Thapar has suggested that such gifts of land were
given by aspiring kings to legitimate their claims to royal authority (2000
[1984]: 88); similarly, Bailey and Mabbett have speculated that while the brah-
madeyya ‘does not necessarily indicate an outright gift of land’, it may have
entitled Brahmins to ‘a part of royal revenue’ (2003: 116).
Another aspect of their status as landowners is that they feel obliged to
serve the Buddha a meal. One of the passages that the Soṇadaṇḍa (DN 4.6),
Kūṭadanta (DN 5.7), and Cankī (MN 95.9) Suttas have in common is that the
Brahmin tells his supporters of his duty to serve the Buddha as his personal
guest. As Soṇadaṇḍa says to his followers: ‘The ascetic Gotama has arrived
in Campā and is staying by Gaggarā’s lotus-pond. And whatever ascetics and
Brahmins come to our territory are our guests. And we should revere, honour,
esteem and worship guests’ (DN 4.6). These passages suggest that despite rec-
ognizing the Buddha’s unique status, Brahmins such as Soṇadaṇḍa, Kūṭadanta,
and Cankī approach the Buddha more out of social duty than with the inten-
tion of becoming followers. By taking on the role of providers, this also sets
up another parallel between the wealthy Brahmin and the king, thus further
establishing Brahmins as potential patrons.
The image of the Brahmin as benefactor is supported by the Ghoṭamukha
Sutta (MN 94), in which the Brahmin Ghoṭamukha transfers one of his own
daily allowances from the king of Anga into a gift for the saṅgha (MN 94.33).
Yet, despite this example, such explicit illustrations of Brahmin patronage are
quite rare. In this context, it is worth considering Uma Chakravarti’s observa-
tion that wealthy Brahmins actually give very little to the Buddhists:
While many prominent brāhmaṇas are described as becoming upāsakas of the
Buddha, they are rarely depicted as being continuously important in the early
Pāli texts. Soṇadaṇḍa, Pokkharasādi or Kūṭadanta do not appear to have contrib-
uted any further support to the saṅgha other than having fed the Buddha and his
band of bhikkhus when they declared themselves his upāsakas. Although they were
themselves frequently land-based, they never gifted any land to the saṅgha. Nor
is there any reference to them in the context of the construction of vihāras for the
saṅgha (1996: 134).

This would appear to be true about Soṇadaṇḍa and Kūṭadanta, who serve
the Buddha a meal and seem to leave it at that, but Pokkharasāti extends an
invitation for future meals, indicating that his support is ongoing. Nonetheless,
Chakravarti’s remarks are significant because they bring attention to the fact
that in a number of these scenes the Buddha receives very little from Brahmins,
suggesting that even if Buddhists did not stand to gain much material advan-

22. This same passage, with the names of people and places changed, also appears at the begin-
ning of the Cankī, Lohicca and Payasi Suttas. Payasi is the only non-Brahmin to receive a land
grant.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.

 BLACK   Rivals and Benefactors 39

tage from their dealings with Brahmins, they nevertheless had to appease them,
presumably because of their high social status and influence. An illustration
of this appears in the Subha Sutta of the Majjhima Nikāya, which suggests that
some wealthy Brahmins had direct influence over the king. When the Brahmin
Jāṇussoṇi is impressed with the Buddha, he steps down from his chariot, extends
his hands, and declares: ‘It is a gain for King Pasenadi of Kosala, it is a great gain
for King Pasenadi of Kosala that the Tathāgata, accomplished and fully enlight-
ened, lives in his realm’ (MN 99.31). Remarkably, this sutta depicts the Brahmin
speaking directly for the king. Even if Jāṇussoṇi were not to offer any material
contribution to the saṅgha, it is not difficult to see that as long as he speaks for
the king his support would be highly valued.

Conclusion: Towards Imagining an Anticipated Audience

As we have seen, the Ambaṭṭha, Soṇadaṇḍa, and Kūṭadanta Suttas, as well as

other encounters between Buddhists and wealthy Brahmins, reveal conflict-
ing attitudes. Given the complex portrayal of wealthy Brahmins, we may
wonder who the intended audience was for these suttas.
The question of audience is, of course, largely speculative. However, as I
have suggested elsewhere (2007b), the participants depicted within a text
can give us an indication of the ideal receivers in the imaginations of the
composers and compilers. Seemingly with similar assumptions in mind,
Manné (1990) has argued that different Nikāyas were intended for different
audiences. Using statistical data of the distribution of her three categories
of suttas, Manné proposes that the Dīgha Nikāya, which contains a majority
of suttas depicting the Buddha involved in a debate, was assembled mainly
for attracting converts; while the primary purpose of the Majjhima Nikāya,
which consists mainly of suttas portraying the Buddha interacting with nuns
and monks, was the presentation of the Buddha and ‘the integration of new
monks into the community and into the practice’ (1990: 79).
I would agree with Manné that different categories of suttas indicate dif-
ferent audiences. By making this claim, Manné also brings up the important
point that Buddhist narrative literature was perhaps not intended exclusively
for those who were already followers and practitioners, but also played a
key role in attracting ‘converts and lay-supporters to the new religion and
to spread its message’ (1990: 79). It seems reasonable to assume, therefore,
that suttas containing conversations between Buddhists and non-Buddhists
may well have been intended for Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike, whereas
suttas that depict the Buddha interacting solely with his own followers are
more likely only to address the Buddhist community.
However, I remain unconvinced by the suggestion that audience was the
basis on which the Nikāyas were organized. It seems to me that both the
Dīgha and Majjhima Nikāyas contain too much of a variety of material for

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.

40 religions of south asia

them to be directed exclusively towards one audience and not another. It

is hard to imagine, for example, that the Sangīti and Dasuttara Suttas of the
Dīgha Nikāya—which seem to anticipate an audience of practitioners who are
already involved in memorizing the texts—would be included in a collection
that was primarily aimed at potential converts and lay-supporters. Con-
versely, the entire Brāhmaṇavagga section of the Majjhima Nikāya addresses
the Buddha’s interactions with Brahmins, with many of the passages in these
suttas belonging to the shared stock phrases that also appear in the episodes
between the Buddha and Brahmins found in the Dīgha Nikāya. It seems to me
inconsistent to assume that the Ambaṭṭha, Soṇadaṇḍa, and Kūṭadanta Suttas are
for a Brahmin audience, but that the Cankī Sutta, for example, is primarily
for Buddhists. As Bhikkhu Bodhi has commented in relation to the Saṃyutta
and Aṅguttara Nikāyas: it remains an open question whether they ‘were drawn
up with a deliberate pedagogical strategy in mind or whether, instead, the
method of arrangement came first and their respective tactical applications
followed’ (2000: 35). Rather than assuming that different collections of suttas
were directed towards different audiences, it seems to me more fruitful to
address the question of audience at the sutta level.
But while Brahmins seem to be a target audience for many of the suttas in
which Brahmin characters appear, we may well wonder why Brahmins would
want to hear stories that are often less than complimentary about their tradi-
tion. When considering this question, it is noteworthy that some of the same
criticisms launched against Brahmanism in the Nikāyas had already been
expressed in Brahmanical sources. A theme which appears in the Upaniṣads,
for example, is that some Brahmins have their status only because of their
birth (brahmabandhu) (CU 6.1.1), while the true Brahmins are those who earn
their status through proper knowledge. Another motif is the contrast between
a traditional Vedic education and the new teachings of the self. Students such
as Nārada (CU 7.1.2-3) and Śvetaketu (CU 6.1.1-2) both approach their teachers
after learning the standard Vedic curriculum, but are shown to be completely
ignorant of the knowledge of the self. A third criticism is that Brahmins are
no longer performing their rituals correctly, with Naciketas (KU), for instance,
reflecting to himself that his father’s sacrifice is not worthy because he offers
milked and barren animals. These examples illustrate that the three-fold
critique of the status of Brahmins, the Vedas, and the sacrifice was already
present in Brahmanical sources. Of course, the Buddhists offer a much more
comprehensive criticism of Brahmanism that includes a number of objections
not anticipated by the Upaniṣads; nonetheless, much of the Buddhist articula-
tion of its opposition to Brahmanism could be seen as an extension of themes
explored in Brahmanical sources.23 In this way, we might imagine that many
Brahmins would have found the main Buddhist arguments against Brahman-
ism to be familiar.

23. See Gombrich (1996) for literary parallels between the Upaniṣads and Pāli texts.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.

 BLACK   Rivals and Benefactors 41

Moreover, as we have seen, much of the Buddhist disapproval is far from

radical: the message to Brahmins seems to be that they can maintain their
status, continue to learn the Vedas, and carry on holding sacrifices, yet still be
considered lay-supporters (upāsaka). In this light, we might reconsider what
it means exactly to be an upāsaka, as many suttas seem to suggest that besides
offering nominal support and the occasional meal, Brahmins could carry on
with their lifestyle. This is perhaps not surprising, however, because consid-
ering the Brahmins’ potential support, both financially and socially, the Bud-
dhists perhaps had more to gain from retaining aspects of Brahmanism and
refraining from the demand of a complete ideological conversion.
While we have focused our attention on encounters between Buddhists
and Brahmins, it is important not to lose sight of the episodes featuring inter-
actions between Buddhists and members of other religious groups and lay
communities. Considering that such groups also were likely audiences for
Buddhist sources—with suttas featuring householders, kings, merchants,
laywomen, Jains, Ājīvikas, Brahmin ascetics, other ascetics, as well as other
people—it is also possible that the sensibilities of some of these potential
audiences might have been taken into account when depicting Brahmins. In
other words, we might imagine that part of the complexity of the portrayal of
Brahmins can be explained by the likelihood that these stories were told to a
lay community beyond the Brahmins. Such audiences may have been amused,
for example, at the light parody at the Brahmins’ expense, but, presumably,
many potential converts and supporters would have been reassured to learn
that the Buddha’s claim to be an enlightened being is verified and reiterated
by eminent Brahmins.
Finally, we might imagine how such stories would have been received by
Buddhist audiences. In addition to rehearsing Buddhism’s superiority over
Brahmanism, we might see these narratives as models for how Buddhists
should interact with Brahmins. As Manné suggests, these episodes ‘serve to
teach the monks how to refute challenges that were, presumably, regularly
being made’ (1990: 71). Yet the complexity in the depiction of Brahmins also
suggests that there may have been conflicting attitudes among Buddhists. As
Freiberger discusses in his paper in this volume, some Buddhist depictions of
Brahmins are much more harsh than the ones we have discussed here, com-
paring Brahmins to dogs, for example. Thus, while the Ambaṭṭha, Soṇadaṇḍa,
and Kūṭadanta Suttas tend to be qualified and restrained, other suttas are
polemical and unhesitating in their criticism of Brahmanism. As Freiberger
has discussed elsewhere, the use of different rhetorical strategies in different
contexts might point to the ‘heterogenous character of canonical texts… This
variety of methods may reflect a plurality of interest groups within the early
Buddhist community’ (1998: 47).
But returning to the episodes we have discussed here, besides possibly
attempting to appease Brahmin audiences we might imagine that these suttas
served to reassure members of the Buddhist community living in a world

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.

42 religions of south asia

where Brahmanism was the more dominant tradition. Through the stories
of Pokkharasāti, Soṇadaṇḍa, and Kūṭadanta, Buddhists may have been com-
forted to learn that even the Brahmins who had not joined the saṅgha were
lay supporters—even if they were still enjoying the wealth and status they
claimed to be their birthright, learning Vedic texts, and performing sacri-
fices. Similar to arguments that would later be made by Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavad
Gītā (9.23)—that, despite appearances, those who sacrifice to other gods are
really making offerings to Him—these suttas suggest that even if Brahmins
do not display any external signs of supporting Buddhism, they are actually
Buddhists.

BRIAN BLACK is Senior Teaching Associate in the Department of Religious

Studies at Lancaster University. His research and teaching interests include
Indian religions, comparative philosophy, and gender and religion. He is
author of the book The Character of the Self in Ancient India: Priests, Kings, and
Women in the Early Upaniṣads.

ABBREVIATIONS

CU Chāndogya Upaniṣad
DN Dīgha Nikāya
KU Kaṭha Upaniṣad
MN Majjhima Nikāya

REFERENCES

Bailey, Greg, and Mabbett, Ian. 2003. The Sociology of Early Buddhism. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511488283
Black, Brian. 2007a. The Character of the Self in Ancient India: Priests, Kings, and Women in the Early
Upaniṣads. Albany: State University of New York Press.
— 2007b. ‘Eavesdropping on the Epic: Female Listeners in the Mahābhārata.’ In Simon Brodbeck
and Brian Black, eds. Gender and Narrative in the Mahābhārata. Abingdon: Routledge.
— (forthcoming) ‘Ambaṭṭha and Śvetaketu: Literary Connections between the Upaniṣads and
Early Buddhist Narratives.’ Journal of the American Academy of Religion.
Bodewitz, H. W. 1974. ‘Vedic Dhāvayati “To Drive”.’ Indo-Iranian Journal 16: 81–95. doi:10.1007/BF
00156888
Bodhi, Bhikkhu, trans. 2000. The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Saṃyutta
Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom.
Bronkhorst, Johannes. 2007. Greater Magadha: Studies in the Culture of Early India. Leiden: Brill.
doi:10.1163/ej.9789004157194.i-416
Chakravarti, Uma. 1996. The Social Dimension of Early Buddhism. New Delhi: Munshiram Mano-
harlal.
Collins, Steven. 1993. ‘The Discourse on What is Primary (Aggañña Sutta): An Annotated Transla-
tion.’ Journal of Indian Philosophy 21: 301–93. doi:10.1007/BF01089255
Findly, Ellison Banks. 2003. Dāna: Giving and Getting in Pali Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.

 BLACK   Rivals and Benefactors 43

Freiberger, Oliver. 1998. ‘The Ideal Sacrifice: Patterns of Reinterpreting Brahmin Sacrifice in Early
Buddhism.’ Bulletin D’Études Indiennes 16: 39–49.
Gombrich, Richard. 1996. How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings.
London: Athlone.
Insler, Stanley. 1989–90. ‘The Shattered Head Split in the Epic Tale of Shakuntala.’ Bulletin d’Études
Indiennes 7-8: 97–139.
Manné, Joy. 1990. ‘Categories of Sutta in the Pāli Nikāyas and their Implications for our Apprecia-
tion of the Buddhist Teaching and Literature.’ Journal of the Pali Text Society XV: 29–87.
— 1992. ‘The Dīgha Nikāya Debates: Debating Practices at the Time of the Buddha.’ Buddhist Studies
Review 9 (2): 117–36.
Ñāṇamoli, Bhikkhu, and Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans. 1995. The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A
Translation of the Majjhima Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Thapar, Romila. 2000 [1984]. From Lineage to State. Reprinted in Thapar, History and Beyond: 1–189.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Tsuchida, Ryūtaro. 1991. ‘Two Categories of Brahmins in the Early Buddhist Period.’ Memoirs of the
Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 49: 51–95. Tokyo: Toyo Bunko.
Walshe, Maurice, trans. 1995. The Long Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Dīgha Nikāya.
Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Witzel, Michael. 1987. ‘The Case of the Shattered Head.’ Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 13/14:
363–415.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.