Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Brahmin Speaks, Tries to Explain: Priestcraft and Concessive Sentences in an Early Buddhist Text

  • Published:
Journal of Indian Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study explores some of the connections between the presentation of religious ideas and the use of concessive clauses and sentences in Pāli Buddhist literature. Special emphasis is placed on the linguistic construction kiñcāpi . . . atha kho . . . . Although this is widely understood to be a concessive and correlative construction and is often translated in ways that adequately reproduce the meaning of the Pāli, still it is the case that the kiñcāpi . . . atha kho . . . construction is sometimes misrepresented. Surprisingly, misrepresentations of said construction are especially prevalent in an ever-growing body of work related to one Pāli text in particular, the Tevijja Sutta. This has helped to obscure the extent to which the sutta is a response to developments in Brahmanical theology external to the text itself. This study examines this unwelcome situation and proposes a remedy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. From an interview of Jonathan Z. Smith conducted by Alfred Benney in 1999, reproduced in Braun & McCutcheon 2018, p. 32.

  2. Jonathan Z. Smith as quoted in Braun & McCutcheon 2018, pp. 38‒39.

  3. Much in the following section is based on and restates ideas found in König 1985, 1986, 1988, 1994; Haspelmath & König 1998; Crevels 2000. This study has also benefitted from Halliday & Hasan 1976; König & Siemund 2000; Mizuno 2007; Patsala 2015; Bossuyt et al. 2018.

  4. Scholars have identified different “levels” on which conditional, causal, concessive, and concessive conditional constructions are said to operate, sometimes characterized as the “content level,” the “epistemic level,” and the “illocutionary level” (Haspelmath and König 1998, p. 568 citing Sweetser). Crevels 2000, pp. 29‒39 categorizes and discusses concessive constructions at the “content,” “epistemic,” “speech-act,” and “text” levels. Drawing on König, Mizuno 2007, pp. 10, 22‒23 points out that in certain rhetorical uses of concessives p amounts to an argument for a conclusion r, whereas q amounts to an argument for the opposite conclusion, not r, which carries more weight in the whole argument.

  5. Text from Sn 41 v232. In this study texts published by the Pali Text Society (“PTS”) are cited using a standard system (see Cone 2001, pp. x‒xiv) save that I uniformly cite page (and in some cases line or verse). Occasionally in this study I standardize / update transliterations: kiñcāpi instead of kiñcâpi or kiñc’āpi, lowercase for capitals, ṃ for ṁ, elimination of extraneous punctuation, etc.

  6. Sn 41 v232 trans. Bodhi 2017, pp. 194‒195. Reformatted. Cp. Norman 2001, p. 29: “Although he commits an evil deed, by body, speech, or by mind, he is incapable of hiding it.”

  7. From Pj I 190. Underline added. Note: Pj I is also known as KhA.

  8. From Pj I 190, trans. Bodhi 2017, p. 701. Underline added.

  9. The indeclinable particle api has different meanings. For a few examples with concessive meanings see Lanman 1884, p. 118 (s.v. ápi, with references to texts provided); Coulson 2010, pp. 49, 50, 102‒103, 127, 133, 144, 180, 197. Cp. concessive uses of pi in the inscriptions attributed to Aśoka according to Hultzsch 1925, pp. 45/47, 67/69, 93/95, 113/114.

  10. See Cone 2001, s.v. ka (p. 602a).

  11. Ja i 147‒148. Underlines added.

  12. Rhys Davids 1880, p. 203. Underlines added.

  13. D ii 319.

  14. Trans. Walshe 1995, p. 352. Ellipses original.

  15. Cp. M i 376 kiñcāpi bhante bhagavā evam āha atha kho . . . trans. Ñāṇamoli & Bodhi 2005, p. 482: “Venerable sir, although the Blessed One has spoken thus, yet . . . .”; M ii 149 kiñcāpi bhavaṃ gotamo evam āha atha kho . . . trans. Holder 2006, p. 167: “Although master Gotama says this, still . . . .”

  16. D ii 319, trans. Rhys Davids & Rhys Davids 1910, p. 351.

  17. See Childers 1872, s.v. kiñcāpi. Reproduced in Childers 1875, s.v. kiñcāpi.

  18. See Childers 1872, s.v. kiñcāpi. Childers also quoted and translated a text that he did not identify: Ayaṁ áyasmá Ānando kiñcápi sekho, “the venerable Ānanda though only a sekha.” Cp. Pj I 92.

  19. Childers 1872, s.v. kiñcāpi.

  20. Text from Childers 1870, p. 316 v9 = Khp 4 v9 = Sn 40 v230 = Nett 168,29‒30 (save for the latter has bhusam pamattā). Some editions of these texts have bhusaṃ pamattā, which conveys the same meaning as bhusappamattā (< bhusa-(p)pamatta).

  21. Trans. Childers 1870, p. 316.

  22. From Gogerly’s 1839 translation of the Ratana Sutta as cited by Childers 1870, p. 334.

  23. In this study words such as “author,” “composer,” and “creator” are used synonymously to stand for whoever it was that created the work in question, be it a single person or more than one.

  24. Childers 1872, s.v. bhusaṁ.

  25. Cp. the same wording at Sn 40 v230 trans. Norman 2001, p. 29: “even though they are very negligent.” Other translations that recognize this kiñcāpi as a concessive meaning “(al)though” or “even though” include Ñāṇamoli 1977, p. 223; Coomára Swámy 1874, p. 63; Fausböll 1898, p. 37; Hare 1947, p. 36; Chalmers 1932, p. 57; Rhys Davids 1996, p. 149. The latter two convey the concessive sense of kiñcāpi without the amplifying sense of bhusa. See also Pj I 187 trans. Ñāṇamoli 1997, p. 205: “Although . . .” is glossed “although . . . still . . . .”

  26. It appears that prior to Childers few if any modern scholars addressed the meaning of kiñcāpi. In works such as Clough 1824, Burnouf & Lassen 1826, D’Alwis 1863, and Mason 1868 the meaning of kiñcāpi is not addressed as far as I can tell. J. Takakusu, who certainly knew of Childers’ work, glossed kiñcāpi simply as “though.” See Takakusu 1900, p. 174.

  27. Rhys Davids & Stede 2004, s.v. kiŋ.

  28. Collins 2006, pp. 123, 135 likewise defines and translates kiñcāpi simply as “although.” Cf. Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation of Pj I 187 (Bodhi 2017, p. 698 reformatted): “Even if they are extremely heedless: Even if those persons who have discerned the truths are extremely heedless because they occupy susceptible positions, such as king of the devas or a wheel-turning monarch, nevertheless . . . .” This translation is open to a regular concessive interpretation (where even if and even though are interchangeable) or a scalar concessive conditional interpretation, depending in part on what the focus of even is determined to be. Besides raising questions of how to interpret even if statements in English, Bodhi’s translation raises the question of whether kiñcāpi was ever used to form scalar concessive conditionals, and whether there ever was in the Pāli tradition a blurring of the distinction between the regular concessive use of kiñcāpi and a concessive conditional use or interpretation. The topic needs further investigation and is beyond the scope of the present study. On the use of the same wording to form regular concessives and concessive conditionals in English and other languages see Haspelmath and König 1998, pp. 568, 589ff.; König 1986, pp. 230, 239ff.; König 1994, p. 680.

  29. See the following instances where kiñcāpi is followed by the correlative atha kho: D i 237,9; D i 237,17; D ii 319,28; D ii 322,24; D ii 326,5; D ii 329,27; D ii 332,15; D ii 334,9; D ii 335,23; D ii 338,32; D ii 342,7; D ii 346,27; D ii 348,6; D ii 349,12; M i 13,25; M i 30,19; M i 30,35; M i 31,5; M i 31,20; M i 104,5; M i 134,19; M i 324,9; M i 324,16 (= M i 324,9); M i 324,26; M i 324,31 (= M i 324,26); M i 357,8; M i 376,33; M i 377,13; M i 378,9; M ii 149,1; M ii 149,14; M ii 150,8; M ii 150,33; M ii 151,15; M ii 151,30; M ii 153,9; M iii 275,9; M iii 277,6‒7 (= M iii 275,9); S i 71,32; S i 72,5; S i 72,9 (= S i 71,32); S i 72,11 (= S i 72,5); S i 72,31; S i 73,6; S i 73,17; S i 150,11; S i 150,19 (= S i 150,11); S iii 130,28; S iii 131,12; S iii 131,19; S iii 153,4; S iii 153,17; S iii 153,28; S iii 154,1; S iii 154,12; S iii 154,23; S iii 155,1; S iv 36,25; S iv 37,11; S iv 313,9; S iv 314,13; A i 126,19; A i 126,22; A i 126,24; A i 127,21; A iii 97,21 (*); A iv 94,11 (*); A iv 94,19 (*); A iv 125,12; A iv 126,1; A iv 126,10; A iv 126,17; A iv 126,24; A iv 126,33; A iv 127,12; A iv 201,24; A iv 202,2; A v 166,17 (**); A v 166,24 (**); A v 167,4 (**); A v 168,23(**); A v 168,29‒30 (**); A v 169,5 (**); A v 170,10; A v 170,15 (= A v 170,10); Ud 55,14; Ud 55,16 (= Ud 55,14); Sn 124,9; Sn 124,16; Vin ii 239,10 (*); Vin ii 239,12 (= Vin ii 239,10); Pp 36,14; Pp 36,17; Pp 36,18; Pp 37,8.

    * Read kiñcāpi. ** Read atha kho as a concessive connective. For the concessive statements involving kiñcāpi at S v 342,6 and S v 342,15 Bodhi (2000, p. 1788) rearranges the syntax and translates the related instances of atha kho as “still,” treating them as concessive connectives. A possibly better alternative, and one that preserves Feer’s punctuation (contra the Burmese edition), is to treat so catuhi . . . in each case as the main clause, and atha kho as the beginning of a new sentence: “And moreover . . . .”

  30. Cone 2001, s.v. atha.

  31. See Rhys Davids & Stede 2004, s.v. kiŋ: “kiñcâpi with pot. . . . atha kho although—yet.”

  32. See https://cpd.uni-koeln.de/search?article_id=2990 (accessed April 4, 2019).

  33. Note too that the Critical Pāli Dictionary (s.v. api) translates kiñcāpi as “although” (Ja i 59,27) and “though” (Mil 46,24). See https://cpd.uni-koeln.de/search?article_id=6741 (accessed April 4, 2019). Both these translations are located under: (b) âpi, contracted with a prec, a. This suggests a view on the derivation of kiñcāpi, a topic not without interest but one that cannot be pursued here. The focus of this study remains on how kiñcāpi is used in a variety of Pāli texts, not its etymology.

  34. Vin ii 239, trans. Horner 2014, p. 2324.

  35. D ii 342, trans. Walshe 1995, p. 362.

  36. M i 134, trans. Ñāṇamoli & Bodhi 2005, pp. 227‒228. Cp. Gethin 2008, p. 160: “Although the snake . . . he would not . . . .” According to one authority although . . . yet was “formerly a common construction” whereas nowadays “either conjunction will suffice to give the same meaning, but with a more modern tone” (Garner 2003, p. 38). Perhaps we can think of Gethin’s translation as an example where atha kho is deliberately untranslated in order to give the English a more modern tone.

  37. M ii 149, trans. Holder 2006, p. 167.

  38. S iii 131, trans. Bodhi 2000, p. 945.

  39. S i 71, trans. Warren 1896, p. 213.

  40. A iii 97, trans. Bodhi 2012, p. 707.

  41. Sn 124, trans. Norman 2001, p. 85.

  42. A iv 94, trans. Bodhi 2012, p. 1066. Here as in some other examples the Pāli verb is actually in the present indicative (seti, “sleeps”).

  43. A iv 125, trans. Hare 2006, p. 82.

  44. D i 235‒253.

  45. From Lay 2000, p. 30 (periods inserted where the original inadvertently omitted them).

  46. See, for example, Rhys Davids 1881, pp. 160‒161, 1899, pp. 298‒299; provoking the objection of E. J. Thomas (1956, p. 125 n2); Thomas 1933, pp. 86‒90; provoking in turn the objection of K. N. Jayatilleke (1963, pp. 477ff.) but the support of Pratap Chandra (1971, pp. 320, 321). Other examples include Nakamura 1955, pp. 77‒78; Tsuchida 1991, passim; Gombrich 2007, pp. 58‒64, 2013, pp. 80‒91; Joshi 2008, pp. 13‒14.

  47. See Rhys Davids 1881, pp. 159‒203.

  48. Rhys Davids & Carpenter 1890, p. 237. Underlines added. Here and to follow ellipses are shown where the text mentions groups of Brahmins.

  49. See the second translation in Rhys Davids 1899, pp. 298‒320.

  50. Rhys Davids 1899, p. 303 (= Rhys Davids 1881, p. 171 save for inconsequential spelling and punctuation).

  51. If we read magga + amagga then, arguably, a more literal translation would be something like “the path and the non-path.” This is how Bodhi (2017, p. 265) translates the compound at Sn 120 v627; cp. Norman 2001, p. 82: “the right road and the wrong road”; Dhp 57 v403 trans. Norman 2000, p. 57: “the right and wrong way.” Others read maggā + magga with meanings such as “various paths” (Andersen 1907, s.v. maggāmagga) or “paths of every description” (Geiger 2005, §33.1). In the latter case Geiger leaves open the possibility that magga + amagga is the correct reading, which is the way the commentarial tradition typically reads the compound, and the way I read it in this study.

  52. For an early example see the anonymous “Blind Guides” in The Buddhist Ray 1888. Apart from this, the two translations by Rhys Davids mentioned above, and edited versions of the latter (such as Rhys Davids 1977, reprinted 2008), I am aware of some forty additional translations, paraphrases, or other representations of the Tevijja Sutta that read questions into §10.

  53. Burnouf 1852, p. 493.

  54. A few translations that do not read questions into the text of §10 include Neumann 1957; Ambedkar 1992, p. 252; Htin Fatt 2002, p. 337; Sujato 2018; so too the paraphrase offered by Barua 1967, pp. 199‒200. Note also Geiger’s recognition that kiñcāpi in §10 of the Tevijja Sutta means the same as kiñcāpi in Sn 40 v230: “Das Wort kiñcāpi ist Konj.” meaning “obwohl, trotzdem daß” (Geiger 1916, p. 100 n1 §111); trans. Ghosh: “although, in spite of the fact that” (Geiger 1968, p. 149 n1 §111). See also the punctuation in editions such as Se (vol. 9, pp. 234‒235); Buddha Jayanti Tripitaka in Pāli-Sinhala online at https://pitaka.lk/bjt/ (accessed November 24, 2018); Nālandā (Kashyap 1958, p. 200); Mahāsaṅgīti online at https://suttacentral.net/dn13/pli/ms (accessed June 6, 2019). It is also worth noting that the analogous passage in DĀ 26 (a parallel of the Tevijja Sutta in Chinese) does not have Vāseṭṭha ask a question. See the Chinese text at https://suttacentral.net/da26/lzh/taisho (accessed December 10, 2018); http://cbetaonline.dila.edu.tw/en/T0001_016 (accessed December 28, 2018); trans. Anālayo 2017, p. 185; Ichimura 2018, p. 96; cp. the discussion of the Pāli and Chinese versions in McGovern (2013, pp. 388ff). As for DĀ 45 (a parallel of the Tevijja Sutta in Sanskrit), according to scholars involved with work on the still unpublished text it does not contain a passage corresponding to §10 (private communication with Jens-Uwe Hartmann, December 2018).

  55. As above, less question marks. Dhammachai Tipiṭaka Project 2013, p. 228 omits ce after bahūni.

  56. If ce is omitted then pi would mean something like “though.” As far as I am aware nobody has come up with a good explanation for the apparent gender shift of nānā-magge to nānā-maggāni in §10. Wijesekera (1956, p. 297) thinks that nānā-maggāni was “obviously” influenced by sabbāni tāni niyyānikāni, and that this is the real point of interest in the matter, but his discussion is marred by misstatements of fact. Contra Wijesekera, magga and mārga in the neuter appear elsewhere in Pāli and Sanskrit texts, including D i 249; M ii 206; Ja v 153; the commentaries on S iii 90 and A i 246; MBh 3.160.29; 3.160.33.

  57. Adapted from Crevels 2000, p. 32.

  58. D i 235ff. Rhys Davids & Stede 1890 (unpaginated “ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA”) correct svâyaṃ to yvāyaṃ. The PTS text is not consistent on ayam / ayaṃ before vowels.

  59. Rhys Davids 1899, pp. 301ff.

  60. For example, G. C. Pande (2006, p. 93) thinks that §§9‒10 of the Pāli text “suffer from some confusion” and that some of what the text says is “quite unnecessary.” But it would appear to be Pande who suffers from some confusion in that he ‒ like many others ‒ fails to recognize the significance of the kiñcāpi . . . atha kho . . . constructions in §10. Likewise those who think that §10 reflects “confusion among the Brahmins” (Johnson 2012, p. 232, citing Walshe’s [inaccurate] translation of §10). Walshe himself thinks that the two Brahmins in the Tevijja Sutta are “puzzled” (Walshe 1995, p. 58). A better word to describe them would be “dogmatic.”

  61. See the online Critical Pāli Dictionary, s.v. uju-magga,https://cpd.uni-koeln.de/search?article_id=15761 (accessed April 3, 2019).

  62. As far as I can tell, apart from the Pāli Tevijja Sutta and related commentaries the word añjasāyana appears in no other ancient Buddhist text. This includes the Sanskrit DĀ 45 (private communication with Lance Cousins 2015; confirmed by Jens-Uwe Hartmann, December 2018).

  63. The scholarly consensus reads adj. añjasāyana (f. -ī) from (añjasā + ayana). See añjasā / añjasāyana in Böhtlingk & Roth 1855, Goldstücker 1856, Apte 1890, Monier-Williams 1899. Despite the latter’s first definition “having a straight course,” which may suggest a bahuvrīhi, it is surely better to privilege the second definition provided by Monier-Williams, “going straight on,” and to read añjasāyana as an instrumental aluk tatpuruṣa (on which see Kale 1960, p. 124 §206). Indeed, this is how important native commentators have understood the compound (see Śāstri & Rangāchārya 1897, pp. 257‒258). As such, añjasāyana means something like “straightly-going” but in most contexts “straight-going” or “going straight” would be preferable translations. Cp. Ghatage 1979, s.v. añjasāyana “going or leading straight on.”

  64. To the list of such occurrences in Brahmanical texts adduced by Shults (2013, p. 120) should be added one in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa (in a section on the cāturhotracayana, performed with a soma ritual), thus yielding: AB 4.17.8; JB 2.383 (twice); 2.419; 2.421 (twice); TS 7.2.1.2; 7.3.5.3; 7.3.7.3; 7.3.9.3; 7.4.1.3; 7.4.2.4; 7.4.4.3; TB 3.12.5.2. On añjasāyana in JB 2.419 and 2.421 see now Shults 2015. The term añjasāyana also appears (twice) in a fragment of the so-called Vādhūla Sūtra (see Caland 1928, p. 191 lines 21‒22). Additionally, the JĀB as edited by B. R. Sharma contains the wording devānāṃ vāñjasāyanī with the variant añjasāyinī noted (p. 33).

  65. Thus raising questions about the portrayal of Brahmins in Pāli texts. For instance, in Pāli texts ujumagga (or uncompounded uju with magga) is often a shorthand way of referring to the proper training and conduct of a Buddhist, but that cannot be the meaning here. Nor does ṛjumārga seem like a term that was used very much by actual Brahmins, at least from what can be observed in their surviving texts (but see MBh 3.142.13). On the other hand, we should be wary of thinking that all Brahmins always went around speaking only perfect Sanskrit. On diglossia among ancient speakers of varieties of Indo-Aryan and related questions see Houben 2018, Deshpande 2019. On the possibility that Brahmins recognized for their varṇa status and ritual prestige joined the Buddhist movement and made significant contributions to teachings present in the tipiṭaka see now Walser 2018a; also Walser 2018b, passim.

  66. Cp. Aśvaghoṣa’s incorporation of Brahmanical lore into the Buddhacarita described by Olivelle 2009, pp. xvii‒xlix.

  67. To give only one example, §2 of the Tevijja Sutta mentions several Brahmins described by the term mahāsāla. Such characters are akin to the mahāśāla characters that appear in several Late Vedic texts, characteristically as seekers of religious knowledge, authorities in matters of religion, or debaters of religious subjects. One thinks of the mahāśāla Brahmins in CU 5.11, who do not get very far in their discussion before they decide to seek out an expert. So too Vāseṭṭha and Bhāradvāja ‒ students of mahāsāla Brahmins ‒ in the Tevijja Sutta.

  68. That is, leaving or leading out of saṃsāra. See Cone 2010, s.vv. niyyāti, niyyānika. But see also Sv ii 400, which glosses niyyāniko niyyāti with the wording niyyayanto niyyāti, gacchanto gacchati. Note too that elsewhere in the text (D i 248; 252) the goal of the Brahmins is rephrased in the expression brahmuno sahavyūpagā, one meaning of which can be understood as “going to the companionship of Brahmā.” Note: where the text has brahmānaṃ sahavyūpagā / sahavyatāya (D i 245ff.) emendation to brahmuno has been proposed. See Wynne 2013, pp. 149‒151.

  69. MBh 12.193.28 = 12.200.30 in Wynne 2009, p. 244.

  70. Trans. Wynne 2009, p. 245.

  71. The passage is located in a complex textual unit discussed by Brockington (n.d.).

  72. MBh 3.81.60 trans. van Buitenen 1981, p. 381. Cp. MBh 3.80.56; 3.80.96; 3.80.132.

  73. See MBh 1.204.21 trans. van Buitenen 1983, p. 398; Hopkins 1915, p. 197.

  74. Sullivan 1994, p. 397 citing Bailey, Hacker, and Gonda.

  75. See, for example, MBh 1.58.38; 12.121.55; MU 1.1.1. On the mythology of Brahmā see Bailey 1983.

  76. MBh 1.36.22 trans. van Buitenen 1983, p. 97.

  77. See, for example, D i 18: aham asmi brahmā mahā-brahmā abhibhū anabhibhūto aññad-atthu-daso vasavattī issaro kattā nimmātā seṭṭho sañjitā vasī pitā bhūta-bhavyānaṃ. Trans. Walshe 1995, p. 76: “I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, the All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.”

  78. MBh 12.193.23. Wynne 2009, p. 244 has pratyakṣaṃ phaladarśanam.

  79. JB 2.383. For the text see Murakawa 2007, p. 23.

  80. As Schwerda 2017, p. 73 points out, in the JB some ritual procedures, “while part of one school’s teaching, may be seen as harmful by another school of thought.”

  81. JB 2.383. The standard edition of the problematic text has satyapathaṃ (Vira & Chandra 1986, p. 326), but I quote from the text critically edited by Murakawa.

  82. Practically the same point was made already by Hayes 1988, p. 6.

  83. From AB 4.17.8. Here ṣaḷahaḥ is a variant spelling of ṣaḍahaḥ.

  84. Trans. Keith 1920, p. 210 save that I have changed “path that leads straight” to “path going straight.” Cp. Migron 1995, p. 114: “Like a directly-going road, so is the Abhiplava Ṣaḍaha . . . .”

  85. On the Pṛṣṭhya Ṣaḍaha see, for example, Murakawa 2000, pp. 114ff. On the difference between the Abhiplava Ṣaḍaha and the Pṛṣṭhya Ṣaḍaha see Keith 1920, pp. 58‒59; 1925, vol. 2, p. 351. See also Eggeling 1894, pp. xxi‒xxiii and nn.

  86. TS 7.2.1.2. Here the adj. añjasāyana appears in Vedic fem. dual -ī (see Keith 1914, p. cxlvii §5).

  87. Trans. adapted from Keith 1914, vol. 2, p. 573. This is a pericope that appears seven times in the TS, as noted above. All these are in the Brāhmaṇa portions of the TS.

  88. The editors of the pilot version of the critical edition of the Sīlakkhandhavagga read the relevant part of §10 as: addhariyā brāhmaṇā tittiriyā brāhmaṇā chandokā brāhmaṇā bavharijā brāhmaṇā (Dhammachai Tipiṭaka Project 2013, p. 228).

  89. As E. J. Thomas seems to have recognized. See Thomas 1956, p. 125.

  90. CU 8.15 trans. Olivelle 1998, p. 287.

  91. Themselves mentioned respectively at CU 2.12 and 2.14.

  92. Keith 1925, vol. 2, p. 314.

  93. See KU 1.5. On the well-known ambiguity of neuter brahman / masculine Brahmā in the text see Roebuck 2003, p. 435 n14; Olivelle 1998, p. 585 n5:17; Keith 1908, p. 18 n2.

  94. VDhS 28.10‒15 text and trans. Olivelle 2000, pp. 458‒459.

  95. See D i 244 §25. I hope to discuss this passage in a future work.

  96. Note too, for what it is worth, that at Sv ii 399 the commentator thinks that the two Brahmins approach the Buddha after they carry out their daily recitation (divasaṃ sajjhāyaṃ katvā).

  97. The word “priestcraft” may carry negative or derogatory connotations, but it need not do so, as it may refer simply to the lore and practices of priests. Yet it seems to me that although different words are used, the idea of Brahmanical priestcraft with negative connotations is exactly what the author of the Tevijja Sutta is invoking and targeting.

  98. See D i 247 §31ff., trans. Rhys Davids 1899, pp. 313ff. Cp. Gombrich 2013, p. 81: “Brahmā, by the brahmins’ account, is morally pure, but they are not, so how can they claim to match him?”

  99. See D i 249 §38.

  100. On the dating of Brahmanical texts relative to the early Buddhist period see now Witzel 2009; for the Dharmasūtras specifically see Olivelle 2000, p. 10.

  101. A position upheld by Rhys Davids more or less implicitly (1881, p. 161) and then explicitly (1899, pp. 298‒299); more recently and most emphatically by Richard Gombrich (2013, pp. 78‒91).

  102. According to the proposal of Nathan McGovern it was the Upaniṣadic “equation of Brahmanical power with the ultimate, that made the idea of a supreme deity named Brahmā possible” (and so paved the way for Brahmā’s rise to prominence). See McGovern 2012, p. 6 et passim.

  103. For a discussion of how some Brahmins blended the ideas of heaven (svarga), the brahmaloka, and other concepts see now Haas 2019, esp. pp. 1039ff.

  104. See McGovern 2012, pp. 6, 13 et passim. See also Wynne 2009, pp. xvii‒xxxix. Wynne characterizes the Mokṣadharmaparvan in the Śāntiparvan of the Mahābhārata as “the only record of Hindu speculation in the early post-Upanishadic period,” a text whose composition is comparable in some ways with the “roughly contemporaneous early Buddhist literature” (xvii).

  105. McGovern 2012, 1.

  106. McGovern 2012, 1. It need hardly be said that “classical Hinduism” is known for its lack of focus on only one supreme being.

  107. For the bibliographic terms of this reference I follow the citation in Somaratne 2015, p. 234. A good deal in Somaratne’s article deals with the Tevijja Sutta. See also Wynne 2013.

Abbreviations

A:

Aṅguttaranikāya. Edited by R. Morris, E. Hardy. 5 vols. PTS. London 1885‒1900.

AB:

Aitareya Brāhmaṇa. Edited by T. Aufrecht. Bonn 1879.

CU:

Chāndogya Upaniṣad. Edited and translated by P. Olivelle. New York 1998.

D:

Dīghanikāya. Edited by T. W. Rhys Davids, J. E. Carpenter. 3 vols. PTS. London 1890‒1911; corrected reprints 2007, 2015, 2006 respectively.

Dhp:

Dhammapada. Edited by S. Sumaṅgala. PTS. London 1914.

Ja:

The Jātaka Together with its Commentary. Edited by V. Fausbøll. 6 vols. London 1877‒1896.

JĀB:

Jaiminīya Arṣeya Brāhmaṇa. Edited by B. R. Sharma. Tirupati 1967.

JB:

Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa. Edited by R. Vira, L. Chandra. Delhi 1986. Parts of this edition have been superseded by Murakawa 2007.

KhA:

This is the abbreviation used in the Pali Text Society’s Pali-English Dictionary (Rhys Davids & Stede 2004) for the commentary on the Khuddakapāṭha. See Pj I.

Khp:

Khuddakapāṭha. With Commentary (Paramatthajotikā I). Edited by H. Smith. PTS. London 1915.

KU:

Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad. Edited and translated by P. Olivelle. New York 1998.

M:

Majjhimanikāya. Edited by V. Trenckner, R. Chalmers. 3 vols. PTS. London 1888‒1899.

MBh:

Mahābhārata. Electronic text of the critical edition online at http://bombay.indology.info/mahabharata/welcome.html. Accessed April-May, 2019.

Mil:

Milindapañho. Edited by V. Trenckner. London 1880.

MU:

Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad. Edited and translated by P. Olivelle. New York 1998.

Nett:

Nettipakaraṇa. Edited by E. Hardy. PTS. London 1902.

Pj I:

Paramatthajotikā I (Khuddakapāṭha-aṭṭhakathā). Edited by H. Smith. PTS. London 1915.

Pp:

Puggalapaññatti. Edited by R. Morris. PTS. London 1883.

Ps:

Papañcasūdanī (Majjhimanikāya-aṭṭhakathā). Edited by J. H. Woods, D. Kosambi, I. B. Horner. 5 vols. PTS. London 1922‒1938.

S:

Saṃyuttanikāya. Edited by L. Feer. 5 vols. PTS. London 1884‒1898.

Se:

Thai edition. Mahācuḷātepiṭakaṃ. Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University. Bangkok 2500 [1957].

Sn:

Suttanipāta. Edited by D. Andersen, H. Smith. PTS. London 1913.

Sv:

Sumaṅgalavilāsinī (Dīghanikāya-aṭṭhakathā). Edited by T. W. Rhys Davids, J. E. Carpenter, W. Stede. 3 vols. PTS. London 1886–1932.

TB:

Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa. Edited by N. S. Goḍbole. 3 vols. Ānandāśrama Sanskrit Series 37. Poona 1898. See also Dumont 1951.

TS:

Taittirīya Saṃhitā. Edited by A. Weber. 2 vols. Leipzig 1871–1872.

Ud:

Udāna. Edited by P. Steinthal. PTS. London 1885.

VDhS:

Vasiṣṭha Dharmasūtra. Edited and translated by P. Olivelle. Delhi 2000.

Vin:

Vinayapiṭaka. Edited by H. Oldenberg. 5 vols. London 1879‒1883.

References

  • Ambedkar, B. R. (1992). The Buddha and His Dhamma. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, vol. 11. Edited by V. Moon. Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra.

  • Anālayo. (2017). Dīrgha-āgama Studies. Taipei: Dharma Drum.

  • Andersen, D. (1907). A Pāli Reader: With Notes and Glossary. Part 2: Glossary. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel, Nordisk Forlag.

  • Apte, V. S. (1890). The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Poona: Shiralkar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, G. (1983). The Mythology of Brahma. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barua, P. R. (1967). Gods and the Brahma-Viharas. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Pakistan, 12(2), 177–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodhi, Bhikkhu (Trans.). (2000). The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Saṃyutta Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom.

  • Bodhi, Bhikkhu (Trans.). (2012). The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Aṅguttara Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom.

  • Bodhi, Bhikkhu (Trans.). (2017). The Suttanipāta: An Ancient Collection of the Buddha’s Discourses, Together with Its Commentaries, Paramatthajotikā II and Excerpts from the Niddesa. Somerville: Wisdom.

  • Böhtlingk, O. & Roth, R. (1855). Sanskrit-Wörterbuch. Part 1. St Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.

  • Bossuyt, T., De Cuypere, L., & Leuschner, T. (2018). Emergence Phenomena in German W-immer/auch-Subordinators. In E. Fuß, et al. (Eds.), Grammar and Corpora 2016 (pp. 97–120). Heidelberg: Heidelberg University Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, W., & McCutcheon, R. T. (Eds.). (2018). Reading J. Z. Smith: Interviews and Essay. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockington, J. (n.d.) The Jāpakopākhyāna (MBh 12.189-93) or “Japa – old or new?” Online at https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Sanskrit_in_Classics_at_Brown/BrownMBhPhilosophyConference/Papers/Brockington.Japakopakhyana.pdf. Accessed April 7, 2020.

  • Burnouf, E. & Lassen, C. (1826). Essai sur le pali, ou langue sacrée de la presqu’ile au-dela du Gange, avec six planches lithographiées, et la notice des manuscrits palis de la Bibliothèque du roi. Paris.

  • Burnouf, E. (1852). Le Lotus de la Bonne Loi, traduit du sanscrit, accompagné d’un commentaire et de vingt et un mémoires relatifs au buddhisme. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caland, W. (Ed. and Trans.). (1928). Eine vierte Mitteilung über das Vādhūlasūtra. Acta Orientalia, 6, 97‒241.

  • Chalmers, Lord. (Ed. and Trans.). (1932). Buddha’s Teachings: Being the Sutta-Nipāta or Discourse-Collection. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Chandra, P. (1971). Was Early Buddhism Influenced by the Upaniṣads? Philosophy East and West, 21(3), 317–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Childers, R. C. (1872). A Dictionary of the Pâli Language. Part 1. A‒NIB. London: Trübner.

  • Childers, R. C. (1875). A Dictionary of the Pali Language. London: Trübner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Childers, R. C. (Ed. and Trans.). (1870). Khuddaka Páṭha, a Páli Text, with a Translation and Notes. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, NS 4, 309‒339.

  • Clough, B. (1824). A Compendious Pali Grammar, with a Copious Vocabulary in the Same Language. Colombo.

  • Collins, S. (2006). A Pali Grammar for Students. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cone, M. (2001). A Dictionary of Pāli. Part 1: a‒kh. Oxford: Pali Text Society.

  • Cone, M. (2010). A Dictionary of Pāli. Part 2: g‒n. Bristol: Pali Text Society.

  • Coomára Swámy, M. (Trans.) (1874). Sutta Nipáta: Or, Dialogues and Discourses of Gotama Buddha. London: Trübner.

  • Coulson, M. (2010). Complete Sanskrit. Revised by Richard Gombrich and James Benson. London: Hodder Headline.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crevels, E. I. (2000). Concession. A Typological Study. Doctoral Diss. University of Amsterdam.

  • D’Alwis, J. (1863). An Introduction to Kachchàyana’s Grammar of the Pàli Language; With an Introduction, Appendix, Notes, etc. Colombo.

  • Deshpande, M. (2019). Scope of Early Sanskrit Usage: A Wider Approach. In M. Deshpande and J. Houben (Eds.) Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, Vancouver, Canada, July 9–13, 2018, Section 2: Linguistics.

  • Dhammachai Tipiṭaka Project. (2013). Dīghanikāya Volume 1: Sīlakkhandhavagga Pilot Version. Thailand, Dhammakāya Foundation: Dhammachai Institute.Footnote

    For the bibliographic terms of this reference I follow the citation in Somaratne 2015, p. 234. A good deal in Somaratne’s article deals with the Tevijja Sutta. See also Wynne 2013.

  • Dumont, P.-E. (Trans). (1951). The Special Kinds of Agnicayana (or Special Methods of Building the Fire-Altar) According to the Kaṭhas in the Taittirīya-Brāhmaṇa: The Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Prapāṭhakas of the Third Kāṇḍa of the Taittirīya-Brāhmaṇa with Translation.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 95(6), 628‒675.

  • Eggeling, J. (Trans.). (1894). The Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa according to the text of the Mādhyandina School. Part 3. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Fausböll, V. (Ed. and Trans.). (1855). Dhammapadam: Ex Tribus Codicibus Hauniensibus Palice Edidit, Latine Vertit, Excerptis Ex Commentario Palico. Hauniae.

  • Fausböll, V. (Trans.). (1898). The Sutta-Nipâta: A collection of discourses, being one of the canonical books of the Buddhists. 2nd ed, revised. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Garner, B. A. (2003). Garner’s modern American usage. [2nd. ed.] New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Geiger, W. (1916). Pāli Literatur und Sprache. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, W. (1968). Pāli Literature and Language. Translated by B. Ghosh (2nd ed.). Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, W. (2005). A Pāli Grammar. Translated by B. Ghosh. Revised and edited by K. R. Norman. Reprint. Oxford: Pali Text Society.

  • Gethin, R. (Trans.). (2008). Sayings of the Buddha: A selection of Suttas from the Pali Nikāyas. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Ghatage, A. M. (Gen. Ed.). (1979). An encyclopaedic dictionary of Sanskrit on historical principles. Vol. 2, Part 1. Poona: Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute.

  • Goldstücker, T. (1856). A dictionary, Sanskrit and English, extended and improved from the second edition of the dictionary of Professor H. H. Wilson, with his Sanction and Concurrence; together with a Supplement, Grammatical Appendices and an Index, Serving as an English - Sanskrit Vocabulary. Berlin: A. Asher.

  • Gombrich, R. (2007). How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings. 3rd Indian Reprint. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

  • Gombrich, R. (2013). What the Buddha thought (2nd ed.). Sheffield: Equinox.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, D. (2019). Ritual, self and yoga: On the ways and goals of Salvation in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 47, 1019–1052.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, E. M. (Trans.). (1947). Woven Cadences of Early Buddhists. Reprint. London: Geoffrey Cumberlege, Oxford University Press.

  • Hare, E. M. (Trans.). (2006). The Book of the Gradual Sayings (Aṅguttara-Nikāya) or More-Numbered Suttas. Vol. 4. Reprint. Lancaster: Pali Text Society.

  • Haspelmath, M., & König, E. (1998). Concessive conditionals in the languages of Europe. In J. van der Auwera (Ed.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe (pp. 563–640). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, R. P. (1988). Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16, 5–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holder, J. J. (Ed. and Trans.). (2006). Early Buddhist Discourses. Indianapolis: Hackett.

  • Hopkins, E. W. (1915). Epic mythology. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horner, I. B. (Trans.). (2014). The Book of the Discipline: Vinayapiṭakaṁ. Reprinted from 6 vols. With supplementary translation by Bhikkhu Brahmali. Prepared by Bhikkhu Sujato. Published by SuttaCentral online at https://suttacentral.net/downloads. Accessed November 29, 2018.

  • Houben, J. E. M. (2018). Linguistic paradox and diglossia: The emergence of Sanskrit and Sanskritic Language in Ancient India. Open Linguistics, 4, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Htin Fatt, U (Trans.). (2002). Dīgha Nikāya: Long Discourses of the Buddha, A Translation of Sīlakkhandavagga Pāḷi, Division Concerning Morality. Edited by The Editorial Committee. Yangon: Department for the Promotion and Propagation of the Sāsanā.

  • Hultzsch, E. (1925). Inscriptions of Asoka. Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, vol. 1. New ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Ichimura, S. (Trans.). (2018). The canonical book of the Buddha’s lengthy discourses. Vol. 3. Moraga: BDK America.

  • Jayatilleke, K. N. (1963). Early Buddhist theory of knowledge. London: George Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. E. (2012). The Buddha and Patañjali: The impact of Buddhism on the yoga Sūtras of Patañjali with regard to ethics as foundation of spiritual attainment as well as the conception of the cause and cessation of suffering. Sri Lanka International Journal of Buddhist Studies, 2, 225–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, L. M. (2008). Brahmanism, Buddhism, and Hinduism: An Essay on their Origins and Interactions. The Wheel Publication No. 150/151. BPS Online Edition. https://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh150_Joshi_Brahmanism-Buddhism-and-Hinduism.pdf. Accessed May 29, 2019.

  • Kale, M. R. (1960). A Higher Sanskrit Grammar, For the Use of Schools and Colleges. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kashyap, Bhikkhu J. (Gen. Ed.). (1958). The Dīghanikāya (1. Sīlakkhandha Vagga). Pāli Publication Board (Bīhar Government).

  • Keith, A. B. (1925). The religion and philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Keith, A. B. (Trans.). (1908). The Śāṅkhāyana Āraṇyaka, with an Appendix on the Mahāvrata. London: Royal Asiatic Society.

  • Keith, A. B. (Trans.). (1914) The Veda of the Black Yajus School, Entitled Taittiriya Sanhita. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Keith, A. B. (Trans.). (1920). Rigveda Brahmanas: The Aitareya and Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇas of the Rigveda. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Ko Lay, U. (Comp.). (2000). Guide to Tipitaka. Edited by The Editorial Committee, Burma Pitaka Association, Yangon, Myanmar. Selangor: Selangor Buddhist Vipassanā Meditation Society.

  • König, E., & Siemund, P. (2000). Causal and concessive clauses: Formal and semantic relations. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 341–360). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • König, E. (1985). On the history of concessive connectives in English. Diachronic and Synchronic Evidence. Lingua, 66, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • König, E. (1986). Conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives: Areas of contrast, overlap and neutralization. In E. C. Traugott, et al. (Eds.), On conditionals (pp. 229–246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • König, E. (1988). Concessive connectives and concessive sentences: Cross-linguistic regularities and pragmatic principles. In J. A. Hawkins (Ed.), explaining language universals (pp. 145–166). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • König, E. (1994). Concessive clauses. In R. E. Asher (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 679–681). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanman, C. R. (1884). A Sanskrit reader: With vocabulary and notes. 2 parts. Boston: Ginn, Heath & Co.

  • Mason, F. (1868). A Pali Grammar: On the Basis of Kachchayano. Toungoo: With a Chrestomathy & Vocabulary.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGovern, N. (2012). Brahmā: An early and ultimately doomed attempt at a Brahmanical Synthesis. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 40(1), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGovern, N. (2013). Buddhists, Brahmans, and Buddhist Brahmans: Negotiating Identities in Indian Antiquity. PhD Diss: University of California, Santa Barbara.

    Google Scholar 

  • Migron, S. (1995). The Cleft Sentence in Vedic Prose: a Sketch. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, 55, 99–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mizuno, Y. (2007). Although clauses in English Discourse: A functional analysis. PhD Diss: Hokkaido University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monier-Williams, M. (1899). A Sanskrit-English Dictionary: Etymologically and philologically arranged, with special reference to Cognate Indo-European Languages. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murakawa, A. (2000). The Gavāmayana Portion(s) of the Jaiminīya-Brāhmaṇa: A preliminary study. Journal of the Japanese Association for South Asian Studies, 12, 110–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murakawa, A. (2007). Das Gavāmayana-Kapitel im Jaiminīya-Brāhmaṇa. Doctoral Diss: Free University of Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura, H. (1955). Upanisadic tradition and the early school of Vedānta as noticed in Buddhist Scripture. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 18(1/2), 74–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ñāṇamoli, Bhikkhu & Bodhi, Bhikkhu (Trans.). (2005). The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Majjhima Nikāya. 3rd ed. Boston: Wisdom.

  • Ñāṇamoli, Bhikkhu (Trans.). (1997). The Minor Readings (Khuddakapāṭha): The First Book of the Minor Collection (Khuddakanikāya). Oxford: Pali Text Society.

  • Ñāṇamoli, Bhikkhu (Trans.). (1977). The Guide (Netti-ppakaraṇaṁ): According to Kaccāna Thera. Reprint. London: Pali Text Society.

  • Neumann, K. E. (Trans.). (1957). Tevijja Sutta, Die dreifache Weisheit. Online at http://www.palikanon.com/digha/d13.htm. Accessed December 30, 2018. Also online at http://www.intratext.com/IXT/DEU0060/_PW.HTM. Accessed December 30, 2018.

  • Norman, K. R. (Trans.). (2000). The word of the Doctrine (Dhammapada). Reprint with corrections. Oxford: Pali Text Society.

  • Norman, K. R. (Trans.). (2001). The group of discourses (Sutta-Nipāta). 2nd ed. Oxford: Pali Text Society.

  • Olivelle, P. (Trans.). (1998). The Early Upaniṣads: Annotated Text and Translation. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Olivelle, P. (Trans.). (2000). Dharmasūtras: The Law Codes of Āpastamba, Gautama, Baudhāyana, and Vasiṣṭha. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

  • Olivelle, P. (Trans.). (2009) Life of the Buddha, by Aśvaghoṣa. Clay Sanskrit Library. New York University Press / JJC Foundation.

  • Pande, G. C. (2006). Studies in the origins of Buddhism. 4th revised ed. Reprint. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

  • Patsala, P. (2015). Semantic and pragmatic aspects of lexicography: The case of concessive connectives in modern Greek. PhD Diss. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

  • Rhys Davids, Mrs. [C. A. F.] (Ed. and Trans.). (1996). The minor anthologies of the Pali Canon. part 1. Dhammapada: Verses on Dhamma, and Khuddaka-Pāṭha: The Text of the Minor Sayings. Reprint. Oxford: Pali Text Society.

  • Rhys Davids, T. W. & Carpenter, J. E. (Eds.) (1890). The Dīgha Nikāya. Vol. 1 London: Published for The Pali Text Society, by Henry Frowde, Oxford University Press Warehouse.

  • Rhys Davids, T. W. & Carpenter, J. E. (Eds.). (2007). The Dīgha-Nikāya. Vol. 1. Reprint with corrections. Lancaster: Pali Text Society.

  • Rhys Davids, T. W. & Rhys Davids, C. A. F. (Trans.). (1910). Dialogues of the Buddha. Part 2. London: Henry Frowde, Oxford University Press.

  • Rhys Davids, T. W., & Stede, W. (Eds.). (2004). The Pali Text Society’s Pali-English Dictionary. Reprint. Oxford: Pali Text Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhys Davids, T. W. (Trans.). (1880). Buddhist Birth Stories; Or, Jātaka Tales. The Oldest Collection of Folk-Lore Extant: Being the Jātakatthavaṇṇanā. Translation. Vol. 1. London: Trübner.

  • Rhys Davids, T. W. (Trans.). (1881). Buddhist Suttas. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Rhys Davids, T. W. (Trans.). (1899). Dialogues of the Buddha. London: Henry Frowde, Oxford University Press Warehouse.

  • Rhys Davids, T. W. (Trans.). (1977). A Discourse to Knowers of Veda: Tevijja Sutta. With introduction and notes by P. Debes. The Wheel Publication No. 57/58. 2nd ed. Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society.

  • Rhys Davids, T. W. (Trans.). (2008). A Discourse to Knowers of Veda: Tevijja Sutta, A Discourse of the Buddha on the Path to the Divine. With introduction and notes by P. Debes. The Wheel Publication No. 57/58. In Collected Wheel Publications, vol. 4 (pp. 277‒329). Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society.

  • Roebuck, V. J. (Trans.). (2003). The Upaniṣads. Revised ed. London: Penguin.

  • Śāstri, A. M. & Rangāchārya, K. (Eds.). (1897). The Taittirīya Saṃhitā of the Kṛishna Yajur-Veda with the commentary of Bhaṭṭa Bhāskara Miśra. Vol. 11. Bibliotheca Sanskrita 14. Mysore.

  • Schwerda, P. F. (2017). Ordering the cosmos: An analysis of Religion and Society according to the Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa. PhD Diss: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shults, B. (2013). Brahmanical terminology and the straight way in the Tevijja Sutta. Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, 4, 105–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shults, B. (2015). Reflections on the Teachings of Ahīnas Āśvatthi, with a Translation of Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa 2.419 and 2.421. Asian Literature and Translation, 3(3), 1‒18.

  • Somaratne, G. A. (2015). Middle Way Eclecticism: The Text-Critical Method of the Dhammachai Tipiṭaka Project. Journal of Buddhist Studies, 12(2014–2015), 207–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sujato, Bhikkhu (Trans.). (2018). The Three Knowledges: Tevijja Sutta. Online at https://suttacentral.net/dn13/en/sujato. Accessed February 26, 2019.

  • Sullivan, B. M. (1994). The religious authority of the Mahābhārata: Vyāsa and Brahmā in the Hindu Scriptural Tradition. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 62(2), 377–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takakusu, J. (1900). A Pāli Chrestomathy: With Notes and Glossary Giving Sanskrit and Chinese Equivalents. Tokyo: Kinkōdō.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Buddhist Ray. (1888). Blind guides. The Buddhist Ray, 1(7), 51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, E. J. (1933). The History of Buddhist Thought. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, E. J. (1956). The life of Buddha as legend and history. 3rd ed. Reprint. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

  • Tsuchida, R. (1991). Two categories of Brahmins in the early Buddhist period. Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko, 49, 51‒95.

  • van Buitenen, J. A. B. (Trans. and Ed.). (1981). The Mahābhārata: 2. The Book of the Assembly Hall, 3. The Book of the Forest. Phoenix ed. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

  • van Buitenen, J. A. B. (Trans. and Ed.). (1983). The Mahābhārata: 1. The Book of the Beginning. Paperback ed. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

  • Walser, J. (2018a). When did Buddhism BECOME Anti-Brahmanical? The case of the missing soul. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 86(1), 94–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walser, J. (2018b). Genealogies of Mahāyāna Buddhism: Emptiness, power and the question of origin. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walshe, M. (Trans.) (1995). The Long Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Dīgha Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom.

  • Warren, H. C. (Trans.). (1896). Buddhism in Translations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

  • Wijesekera, O. H. de A. (1956). A Pali Reference to Brāhmaṇa-caraṇa-s. Adyar Library Bulletin, 20(3/4), 294‒309.

  • Witzel, M. (2009). Moving targets? texts, language, archaeology and history in the Late Vedic and Early Buddhist Periods. Indo-Iranian Journal, 52(2–3), 287–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, A. (2013). A Preliminary Report on the Critical Edition of the Pāli Canon Being Prepared at Wat Phra Dhammakāya. Thai International Journal of Buddhist Studies, 4, 135‒170.

  • Wynne, A. (Trans.). (2009). Mahābhārata Book Twelve: Peace, Volume Three, “The Book Of Liberation.” Clay Sanskrit Library. New York University Press / JJC Foundation.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank my wife Lucy Feng for help with reading the Chinese text of DĀ 26. Thanks also to Jens-Uwe Hartmann and the late Lance Cousins for helpful comments on the text of DĀ 45, and to Akiko Murakawa and Joel Brereton for comments on parts of the Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Independent Researcher, Hong Kong, SAR, China

    Brett Shults

Authors
  1. Brett Shults
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shults, B. Brahmin Speaks, Tries to Explain: Priestcraft and Concessive Sentences in an Early Buddhist Text. J Indian Philos 48, 637–664 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-020-09433-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-020-09433-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation