Amba Ha and Śvetaketu - Literary Connections Between The Upani Ads and Early Buddhist Narratives (2011)

Ambaṭṭha and Śvetaketu: Literary Connections Between the Upaniṣads and Early Buddhist
Narratives
Author(s): Brian Black
Source: Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 79, No. 1 (MARCH 2011), pp.
136-161
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23020389
Accessed: 01-05-2020 17:29 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Journal of the American Academy of Religion
This content downloaded from 192.153.32.19 on Fri, 01 May 2020 17:29:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Ambattha and Svetaketu: Literary
Connections Between the
Upanisads and Early
Buddhist Narratives
Brian Black*
This paper focuses on similarities between two literary characters:

Svetaketu from the Upanisads and Ambattha from the Digha Nikaya.
By comparing these two characters, as well as the characters with
whom they interact, I will suggest that these literary figures from com
peting religious traditions appear in different presentations of the same
story. Both Svetaketu and Ambattha are depicted as brahmin students
who are young and arrogant as they approach the domain of a non
brahmin. In the case of Svetaketu, he is rude in his encounter with the
king; whereas Ambattha is disrespectful to the Buddha. In both cases,
the young brahmin leaves the non-brahmin after being defeated in
debate, without having learned from him an important teaching.
Finally, both brahmins are replaced by their teachers, who in contrast
are more refined and humble. As I will demonstrate, these similarities,
along with other shared literary features between these stories, shed
new light on the relationship between the Brahmanical and Buddhist
narrative traditions.
'Brian Black, Department of Religious Studies, Lancaster University, UK. Tel: +44 78 5547 9058.
E-mail: b.black@lancaster.ac.uk I would like to thank the following people for reading drafts of
this paper and offering helpful comments: Jonathan Geen, Steven Lindquist, Joy Manne, Sara
McClintock, Michael Nichols, and Douglas Osto. I am indebted to the late Julia Leslie for setting
me the task of writing about the "true brahmin," a project that inadvertently led me to the
Ambattha Sutta. I would also like to thank the British Arts and Humanities Research Board for
providing the funding under which much of the work on this paper was carried out.
Journal of the American Academy of Religion, March 2011, Vol. 79, No. 1, pp. 136-161
doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfq058
Advance Access publication on November 11, 2010
© The
The Author
Author2010.
2010. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the American Academy of
Religion. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
Black: Ambattha and Svetaketu 137
THE DIALOGICAL RELATIONSHIP between the Brahmanical and

Buddhist traditions has been discussed on a number of occasions.
While the degree of familiarity Brahmanism and Buddhism had with
each other is often explicit in philosophical works of the first few centu
ries CE, the interactions between these traditions are much less clear in
earlier periods. Specifically, there has been much controversy surround
ing the degree to which the early Buddhist tradition was aware of
Brahmanical texts, particularly the Upanisads. In addition to the wide
spread assumption that early Buddhist notions of no-self (anatman)
were in some way a response to Upanishadic conceptions of the self
(see Collins 1982; Gethin 1998; Hamilton 2000), Richard Gombrich
(1996) has proposed that Buddhist sources feature a number of meta
phors and motifs that suggest an acquaintance with the Upanishadic lit
erature. However, scholars such as Chandra (1971) and, most recently,
Bronkhorst (2007) have argued that the Buddhist tradition had little, if
any, direct knowledge of the Upanisads. In this paper, I would like to
contribute to this ongoing discussion by suggesting that the Upanisads
and the Ambattha Sutta of the Dlgha Nikaya (DN) convey two versions
of the same story, with the literary characters Svetaketu and Ambattha
sharing some striking similarities.
In his excellent article on the young Svetaketu (1999), Patrick
Olivelle has observed that in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad (BU),
Svetaketu is portrayed as rude and arrogant. Indeed, Olivelle calls him
the Vedic "spoiled brat" (1999: 63). At the end of his article, Olivelle
points to a number of other literary contexts in which the young
brahmin maintains his "proud and impetuous" image (1999; 67). Both
the Jaiminlya Brahmana (JB) (2.329) and the Sarikhayana Srautasutra
(16.29.6-16.29.11), for example, contain brief references to a story in
which Svetaketu becomes jealous when a man named Jala is asked to
perform a sacrifice and becomes the royal priest. Similarly, in the
Mahabharata (3.132-3.134) Svetaketu becomes jealous when his father
adopts his nephew Astavakra. Svetaketu also features in stories outside
the scope of Brahmanical literature, appearing as Setaketu in one of the
Pali Jatakas (Jataka 377). Despite the fact that the Jatakas are part of a
different literary tradition, Setaketu, as Olivelle notes, remains very
much the same character that we find in the Brahmanical literature:
"The character of the young Setaketu of this Jataka story matches that
of Svetaketu drawn by the author of [the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad
version of the Svetaketu story]" (1999: 68). In other words, the literary
character Svetaketu displays a remarkable stability despite appearing in
widely differing contexts.
138 Journal of the American Academy of Religion
In this paper, I will suggest that another place where Svetaketu

appears is in a sutta from the DN. However, in this manifestation the
young, irascible brahmin is known by a different name: Ambattha.1
Both Svetaketu and Ambattha are depicted as brahmin students who
are young and arrogant as they approach the domain of a non-brahmin.
In the case of Svetaketu, he is rude in his encounter with the king,
whereas Ambattha is disrespectful to the Buddha. In both cases the
young brahmin leaves the non-brahmin after being defeated in debate,
without having learned from him a valuable teaching. Finally, both
brahmins are replaced by their teachers, who in contrast are more
refined and humble. The parallels do not end with the similarities
between Svetaketu and Ambattha, as both stories also feature two other
similarly constructed characters: the brahmin teacher/father and the
non-brahmin, as well as an additional "character" in the teaching,
offered at the end of each tale. By means of drawing parallels among
the characters, as well as the similar narrative structure in both stories,
I will argue that the Ambattha Sutta is a retelling of the Svetaketu story.
Furthermore, this paper will explore the ways by which the Ambattha
Sutta makes use of other motifs and literary situations found in the
Upanisads, particularly those associated with debate (brahmodya),
including the well-known threat of head shattering. As we will see, the
composers of the Upanisads and the Buddhist suttas use the same lit
erary framework to convey quite different philosophical positions, yet—
as I will suggest—these shared literary features are a significant aspect
of the relationship between the Brahmanical and Buddhist narrative
traditions.
THE SVETAKETU STORY IN THE UPANISADS
Let us begin by looking at the Svetaketu story in the Upanisads.

This story of the young brahmin, his father, and the king is the only
narrative scene that occurs in three different Upanisads (BU 6.2.1-16;
Chandogya Upanisad [CU] 5.3.1-5.10.10; Kausitaki Upanisad [KsU]
1.1-2). Olivelle's article concentrates on the literary intent of the differ
ent editors or authors: "[E]ach version has its own narrative logic from
'According to Bronkhorst, the Sankritized version of Ambattha's name is Ambastha, 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 Ambattha/Ambastha, 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 Ambattha was not what he claimed to be, viz., a pure-blooded brahmin"
(2007: 354-355).
the viewpoint of the respective author, and the additions, subtractions,

and modifications can be viewed as part of the narrative strategy of
each author" (1999: 48). He concludes that the negative portrayal of
Svetaketu in the BU is illustrative of the text's critique of Brahmanical
orthodoxy, and that the CU, which is more conservative, paints a more
positive picture of Svetaketu. The KsU has less of an observable agenda,
as Olivelle concedes, yet its version of the Svetaketu story is important
because it is considerably shorter and, as we shall see, it offers details
that the other two versions do not. These are notable differences,
especially in the context of Olivelle's argument. This paper, however,
will mainly focus on the narrative elements that are shared by all three
versions, primarily following the story as it appears in the BU, as this
version, particularly in its portrayal of Svetaketu, has the most simi
larities with the Ambattha Sutta.
The BU account begins when Svetaketu arrives at the king's resi
dence and interrupts Pravahana while he is eating, or, as Olivelle
suggests, perhaps while entertaining female attendants.2 This initial
encounter depicts Svetaketu entering Pravahana's residence abruptly,
indicating that he has not yet learned the proper etiquette for approach
ing a king. As Olivelle explains: "Svetaketu did not know his manners
and barged into the presence of [Pravahana] during an inappropriate
moment" (1999: 58). In addition to approaching the king rudely,
Svetaketu arrogantly refuses to learn from him. The king asks the young
brahmin a number of questions and then invites him to stay with him,
but when Svetaketu cannot answer any of the questions, he refuses the
king's invitation to stay at his court and hastily goes back to his father.
When he returns to his father, Svetaketu is as disrespectful to him
as he was to the king, accusing him of not teaching properly. Then the
young brahmin rejects his father's suggestion that they go together to
learn from the king, curtly telling his father to go on his own. In this
scene we see a direct contrast between Svetaketu and his father. While
Svetaketu continues to be rude and once again spurns the opportunity
to receive instruction from the king, his father is patient with his son,
as well as humble enough to go to learn from the king.
The remainder of the story recounts the courteous exchanges
between Uddalaka and king Pravahana. Uddalaka is respectful toward
the king, while Pravahana reciprocates by offering him refreshments
and a wish. Despite his generosity, the king is reluctant to share his
201ivelle argues that the grammatical form of pari-ycar as paricarayamanam refers to serving
food, yet also has sexual connotations (1999: 58).
knowledge with the brahmin, but eventually Uddalaka's mode of behav

ior convinces the king to teach him. It is notable that immediately
before agreeing to teach Uddalaka, Pravahana reveals that the knowl
edge he is about to impart has never reached brahmins before. Thus,
despite the secrecy3 that the king claims is involved in the transmission
of this knowledge, Pravahana is so impressed by Uddalaka's speech and
actions that he cannot refuse to teach him. Uddalaka's actions illustrate
both his humility and knowledge of the proper protocol, and, crucially,
it is specifically because Uddalaka behaves properly that he earns the
opportunity to learn one of the most coveted teachings in the
Upanisads.
The story of Svetaketu, his father, and the king addresses a number
of issues that are prominent throughout Upanishadic dialogues. One of
the distinctive themes of the BU version is the critique of orthodox
brahmins. As Olivelle observes: "A motif evident throughout the text is
the humiliation of proud brahmins, especially the learned brahmins
from Kuru-Pancala, the ancient center of Brahmanical culture" (1999:
65). In contrast to Yajnavalkya, who dominates the BU and who rep
resents a new kind of ideal brahmin, both Uddalaka Aruni and
Svetaketu are depicted as typical orthodox brahmins from Kuru
Pancala. In other words, Uddalaka Aruni and Svetaketu are sometimes
portrayed in a negative light because the BU favors brahmins like
Yajnavalkya who are associated with the more recently settled region of
Videha. Whereas the BU tends to be critical of orthodox brahmins
from Kuru-Pancala, the CU tends to represent Uddalaka Aruni and
Svetaketu more favorably. Even though the CU does not share the cri
tique of brahmin orthodoxy, it does emphasize the personal dynamics
between the characters, indicating that etiquette is a central aspect of
this story throughout its various versions. Thus, the BU and CU, and
to a lesser extent the KsU, bring attention to the dynamics between
brahmins and kings.
Although there are variations among the three versions, the outline
of the story is basically the same. As Renate Sohnen (1981: 179) has
pointed out, in all three episodes the Svetaketu story has three narrative
components: (1) Svetaketu arrives at the residence of the king, who asks
him a number of questions. In the BU and CU the king is named
Pravahana Jaivali, while in the KsU he is known as Citra Garigyayani.
Unable to answer any of the king's questions, Svetaketu leaves to return
to his father, Uddalaka Aruni. (2) Svetaketu has a short dialogue with
3For a discussion of secrecy in the Upanisads, see Black (forthcoming).
his father where he explains that he could not answer any of the king's
questions. Upon hearing this, Uddalaka decides to go to the king to
learn from him. (3) Uddalaka approaches the king, who then delivers a
valuable teaching. In both the BU and CU the king's teaching is the
knowledge of the five fires (pancagnividya) and the two paths of the
dead. In the KsU, however, it is a discourse about the path after death.
Olivelle has also commented on the similar structure of all three ver
sions: "There is a clear structure to these three units, each opening with
the arrival of a person into the presence of another: Svetaketu to Jaivali
[Pravahana] or Citra; Svetaketu to Uddalaka; and Uddalaka to Jaivali
[Pravahana] or Citra" (1999: 53).
THE AMBATTHA SUTTA4

Like all Buddhist suttas, the Ambattha story begins with the words
'thus I have heard' (evam me sutam), and in a typically Buddhist
fashion recounts where the Buddha is staying. The brahmin teacher
Pokkharasati5 hears that the Buddha is staying nearby and becomes
aware of reports that this ascetic called Gotama is known to be fully
enlightened, perfected in knowledge and conduct, and a teacher of the
dhamma. In order to find out if these reports are accurate, Pokkharasati
sends his student Ambattha to visit the Buddha.
Before leaving his teacher Ambattha asks: "Sir, how shall I find out
whether the report is true, or whether the Reverend Gotama is as they
say or not?" (DN 3.1.5).6 His teacher responds that if Gotama is truly a
fully enlightened Buddha, then he will have the thirty-two marks of a
great man (mahapurisa).7 After this conversation with his teacher,
Ambattha mounts his chariot and drives to the Buddha's residence.
When Ambattha arrives, the followers of the Buddha seem to know
who he is, as they acknowledge that he is from a good family and that he
is the student of the "distinguished" (abhinnata) teacher Pokkharasati.
Unlike Svetaketu, Ambattha does not "barge in" on the Buddha and, in
4See Black (2009: 25-43) for a discussion of the Ambattha Sutta in relation to the Sonadanda
and Kutadanta Suttas.
5Pokkharasati also appears as a well-known and well-respected brahmin teacher in the Tevijja
Sutta (DN 13.2), the Canki Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya [MN] 95.8ff), the Vasettha Sutta (MN 98.2),
and the Subha Sutta (MN 99.10ff).
^Translations of the Ambattha Sutta are from Walshe (1995).
7The full list of the thirty-two marks appears in the Lakkhana Sutta (DN 30), as well as the
Mahapadana Sutta (DN 14) and the Brahmayu Sutta (MN 91). According to Walshe, the thirty
two marks are "intended to show the relation between action and karmic result" (1995: 610—
611n939).
fact, when he initially arrives he is quite courteous. He coughs and knocks

before entering the Buddha's door, as the monks had advised him, and
when he first enters he salutes the Buddha and sits to one side of him.8
However, after these initial courtesies Ambattha begins to act
rudely: "But Ambattha walked up and down while the Lord sat there,
uttered some vague words of politeness, and then stood so speaking
before the seated Lord" (DN 3.1.9). The Buddha comments on the
young brahmin's impolite behavior, asking him if he would behave in
such a way in the company of "venerable" (vuddha) and "learned"
(mahallaka) brahmins. Ambattha responds: "No, Reverend Gotama.
A brahmin should walk with a walking brahmin, stand with a standing
brahmin, sit with a sitting brahmin, and lie down with a brahmin who
is lying down. But as for those shaven little ascetics, menials, black
scourgings from Brahma's foot, with them it is fitting to speak just as
I do with Reverend Gotama" (DN 3.1.10). When mentioning Brahma's
foot, Ambattha is almost certainly referring to the Vedic creation myth
of the sacrifice of the primordial man (purusa). With these harsh
words, Ambattha conveys not only that he considers himself to be of a
higher social standing than the Buddha, but also that he assumes the
Buddha to be from the lowest social class.9
Ambattha's behavior initiates a long discussion between himself and
the Buddha about class, during which Ambattha claims that the
brahmins are the superior of the four classes. The Buddha responds,
invoking his ability to remember ancestral lineages, claiming that
Ambattha is descended from a slave-girl of the Sakyans, and concluding
that the class relation between himself and Ambattha is actually the
inverse of what the young brahmin had claimed. As the Sakyans are the
clan of the Buddha himself, Ambattha's true identity is a descendent of
the slaves of the Buddha's family.
After tracing Ambattha's ancestors to a slave-girl, the Buddha asks
Ambattha directly whether he has heard this account of his lineage
from his own teachers, warning him that if he does not answer this fun
damental (sahadhammika) question his head will split into seven
pieces. We will explore the nature of this particular threat toward the
end of this paper, but for now it is important to point out the severity
of the Buddha's critique of the brahmins' claim to authority. As we
sManne points out that this is a standard greeting in the Buddhist texts (1990: 52). It also
appears later in this sutta when Pokkharasati sits to one side of the Buddha (DN 3.2.16).
This depiction of the brahmins as regarding Buddhists as the lowest social class "born from
Brahma's foot" also appears in the Aggahha Sutta (DN 27.3), when the Buddha is talking to his
brahmin convert Vassettha.
have seen, the Buddha, with his ability to remember ancestral lineages,
exposes the impurity of Ambattha's family pedigree. Moreover, by
asking this question directly to the young brahmin, he also makes the
accusation that Ambattha and his teachers are aware that their claim to
superiority is false, but are knowingly suppressing the truth.
After this episode, the Buddha, concerned that the brahmins in the
audience are humiliating Ambattha, relates the story of how Ambattha's
ancestor Kanha learned mantras in the south country and married the
king's daughter. He concludes: "So, young men, do not disparage
Ambattha too much for being the son of a slavegirl. That Kanha was a
mighty sage [isz]" (1.23).10 That the Buddha defends Ambattha immedi
ately after accusing him of dishonesty indicates that the Buddha merely
wants to make Ambattha own up to the truth, rather than to embarrass
or punish him.
Nevertheless, the Buddha is not finished questioning Ambattha's
views about class, and he resumes his challenge by posing a series of
questions to Ambattha about how to distinguish the class status of the
offspring of a khattiya (Skt., ksatriya) and a brahmin in a number of
hypothetical situations. The major point of this section is to establish
that the brahmins are actually more relaxed, and thus less pure, about
which mixed unions they recognize. Uma Chakravarti has also
remarked on this passage: "[T]he child of a union between a khattiya
and a brahmana was allowed to participate in all the activities of the
Brahmanas. This would include participation in making offerings to the
gods and having access to brahmana women. However, khattiyas would
not permit the child of such a union to participate in the abhiseka
(consecration) ceremony of the khattiyas. The Buddha argued from this
that khattiyas were higher (settha) and the Brahmanas inferior (hina)
to them" (1996: 110-111).
After interrogating Ambattha, the Buddha invites the young
brahmin to ask him questions. However, rather than question him verb
ally, Ambattha is more interested in looking for the Buddha's thirty
two marks.11 Initially, he sees all of them except the sheathed genitals
10Walshe considers the possibility that Kanha could be identified with Krsna of the Brahmanical
tradition (1995: 549n52).
"Although they do not appear in any extant Vedic text, in the Buddhist literature, the thirty
two marks are strongly associated with the brahmins. The Ambattha Sutta claims that the thirty
two marks constitute part of Ambattha's education (DN 3 1.3) and are found in the brahmins'
mantras. Similarly, in the Buddhist hagiographies, it is a brahmin who establishes the thirty-two
marks of a Buddha. In the Mahapadana Sutta, for example, it is the brahmin "fortune tellers"
(nemitta) who examine the body of Prince Vippasi to determine that he has the thirty-two marks
of a great man (mahapurisa) (DN 14.1.31).
and the large tongue.12 The Buddha, realizing that Ambattha is looking
for these two marks, uses his "psychic power" (iddhabhisamkhara; DN
3.2.12) to show the young brahmin his sheathed genitals.13 At this
point, with one more mark for Ambattha to determine, the Buddha
reveals his elongated tongue by displaying his ability to lick both ears
and his forehead.
After this incident, Ambattha asks to go. He then mounts his
chariot and returns to Pokkharasati, who is waiting for him with a
number of other brahmins in the park. The young brahmin salutes his
teacher and sits down on one side of him, reporting that the Buddha
indeed has thirty-two marks and recounting all that has transpired. His
teacher reacts angrily, saying: "Well, you're a fine little scholar, a fine
wise man, a fine expert in the three Vedas! Anyone going about his
business like that ought when he dies, at the breaking-up of the body,
to go to the downfall, to the evil path, to ruin, to hell!" (DN 3.2.15).
Indeed, Pokkharasati is so angry that after yelling at Ambattha, he kicks
him.
After hearing Ambattha's report of his visit with the Buddha,
Pokkharasati decides he wants to see the Buddha for himself. First, he
has food prepared in his home, anticipating that he will later invite the
Buddha for a meal. He then mounts his chariot and rides to where the
Buddha is staying. When he arrives, Pokkharasati exchanges courtesies
with the Buddha and sits to one side of him, asking him a number of
questions about his conversation with Ambattha. Upon hearing the
Buddha's account, Pokkharasati apologizes for the behavior of his
student and asks the Buddha to pardon him. Then, Pokkharasati looks
for the thirty-two marks, only able to observe the final two when the
Buddha reveals them in the same way he did for Ambattha.
At this point Pokkharasati invites the Buddha for a meal that he
later personally serves to him. After Pokkharasati feeds him, the
Buddha offers a teaching on generosity, morality and heaven, the pro
blems of the sense organs, and the benefits of renunciation. And then
"when the Lord knew that Pokkharasati's mind was ready, pliable, free
of hinderances, joyful and calm" he delivers a sermon on the four noble
truths. After hearing this Pokkharasati comes to the realization that:
"Whatever things have an origin must come to cessation" (DN 3.2.21).
Then Pokkharasati declares himself a lay-follower, saying that he will go
12As Walshe points out, it is difficult to know how Ambattha would have determined the
Buddha's perfect sense of taste (1995: 611n948).
13For more on the Buddha's use of supernatural powers, see Sara McClintock's paper in this
issue.
forth along with his son, wife, ministers, and councilors. He promises
that at any time in future Gotama can visit his household and be served
food.
One of the most persistent themes throughout this story is the cri
tique of brahmins. The young Ambattha is rude, but is later humbled
when the Buddha defeats him in a debate that exposes his false claims
to superiority. In contrast, Pokkharasati treats the Buddha with respect
by inviting him to be his guest and serving him a meal. In addition to
presenting a distinction between a student and teacher, the Ambattha
Sutta pokes fun at the brahmins in its depiction of how Pokkharasati
and Ambattha interact with each other. In a scene that seems to be a
Buddhist parody of the Brahmanical teacher/student relationship,
Pokkharasati admonishes Ambattha and then kicks him when the
young brahmin has returned from his encounter with the Buddha.
COMPARING THE SVETAKETU STORY AND THE

AMBATTHA SUTTA
When looking at the Ambattha Sutta alongside the Svetaketu story,

we can see that there are striking similarities both in the structures of
the narratives and in the depictions of the characters. Like the Svetaketu
story, the Ambattha Sutta has three basic components: (1) Ambattha
arrives at the residence of the Buddha, who asks him a number of ques
tions. Defeated in debate by the Buddha, Ambattha returns to his
teacher Pokkharasati; (2) Ambattha has a short discussion with his
teacher and this inspires Pokkharasati to go to the Buddha and learn
from him; and (3) Pokkharasati approaches the Buddha, who teaches
him the doctrine of the four noble truths.
Of course, there are some notable differences in style and presen
tation. The Ambattha Sutta is significantly longer, adding many more
details. Additionally, the three narrative components are not given the
equal attention that they share in the Upanisads. All three Upanishadic
versions are very short and distribute quite evenly the textual space
devoted to each section. By contrast, the Ambattha Sutta mainly con
sists of the encounter between Ambattha and the Buddha, with
Ambattha's conversation with his teacher and Pokkharasati's sub
sequent dialogue with the Buddha presented as short episodes at the
end of the sutta.
Another difference is that the Ambattha Sutta has a brief prelude at
the beginning of the story that introduces some information about each
of the three central characters and sets up the subsequent encounter
between Ambattha and the Buddha. Although the Svetaketu story as it
appears in the BU and CU does not have a similar prelude, the KsU
also provides an explanation as to why the young brahmin approaches
the king, recounting that Citra Gangyayani chose [Uddalaka] Aruni to
be his officiating priest at a sacrifice, but that Aruni sent his son in his
place (KsU 1.1).
Despite these differences, the structures of the stories are the same.
The Svetaketu story and the Ambattha Sutta both contain the same
three basic narrative units, each opening with the arrival of a person
into the presence of another: brahmin student to non-brahmin;
brahmin student to brahmin teacher; and brahmin teacher to non
brahmin. Additionally, both stories share the same stock characters,
highlighting similar dynamics in the interactions among them. Let us
look more closely at the similarities among the three characters in each
story.
Svetaketu and Ambattha are both depicted as young brahmin stu
dents who are "unfinished" in their education, indicating that both
stories assume that proper etiquette is part of the training of a
student.14 Like Svetaketu, Ambattha is big-headed, and his arrogance
keeps him from respecting the Buddha and learning the coveted teach
ing of the four noble truths. Accordingly, we can see that Olivelle's
characterization of Svetaketu as a "spoiled brat" can easily be applied to
Ambattha. However, while Ambattha's pride is similar to Svetaketu's in
that it is the arrogance of a young brahmin who has not completed his
studies, Ambattha's pride is also the pride of all brahmins. The Buddha
does not blame Ambattha for his ignorance, but rather claims that his
teacher has let him down (DN 3.2.5-3.2.6).
Another similarity between the two young brahmins is that neither
of them can answer the questions of the non-brahmin. However,
whereas Svetaketu cannot answer the king's questions because he does
not know the answers, Ambattha does know but does not want to
admit the answer to the Buddha. After the Buddha asks him a third
time, Ambattha finally admits to knowing the true account of his
"indeed, the Ambattha Sutta depicts Ambattha much the same way that the Upanisads present
a number of brahmin students who have an incomplete education. For example, in the CU (7.1.1)
Narada claims to have received all the Vedic learning, but to be incomplete in his knowledge
because he does not know about atman. Additionally, the CU (6.1.1-7) features a different story
with Svetaketu where the young brahmin returns from his traditional Vedic education unable to
answer his father's questions. In both of these cases from the Upanisads, Vedic knowledge is
presented as incomplete because it does not take into account the new teachings that the
Upanisads promote, especially teachings about atman. The Ambattha Sutta employs a similar
formulaic description to foreshadow Ambattha's lack of knowledge and training that is displayed
when he is in the presence of the Buddha.
ancestry. However, neither young brahmin concedes defeat, as both run

back to their teacher.
Whereas the Upanisads indicate Svetaketu's behavior through his
actions, in the Ambattha Sutta the Buddha overtly criticizes the young
brahmin's conduct. As we have noted, Olivelle demonstrates that the
BU depicts Svetaketu as a spoiled brat by comparing Svetaketu in the
BU to his more refined characterization in the CU. Olivelle's argument
is very convincing, but it is interesting that this is a point that needs to
be argued. This is illustrative of the concise, non-descriptive style of the
Upanishadic narratives. By contrast, the Buddhist story does not leave
as much open to interpretation. We know that Ambattha is rude not
only because he acts similarly to Svetaketu, but also because the
Buddha tells us so: "Ambattha, you have not perfected your training.
Your conceit of being trained is due to nothing but inexperience" (DN
3.1.11). Whereas the Upanishadic version merely implies this element
of the story, the Buddhist version states this dynamic clearly. Michael
Witzel has noticed this tendency throughout the early Buddhist litera
ture: "As often, it is the early Buddhist texts which provide more
detailed, and very useful information. The Pali texts, which have been
composed only shortly after the end of the late Vedic period, frequently
describe in lively and graphic detail what is only alluded to in the Vedic
texts" (1987: 381). Joy Manne suggests that because the Buddhist texts
offer more details, especially in their depictions of debate, this is
"another case where we need Buddhist texts to help us understand brah
minical literature" (1992: 136). I would only add that the understanding
does not work in just one direction. As this paper aims to demonstrate,
reading the literature of the two traditions side by side helps us to
understand both of them.
The second major character in the Svetaketu story and the
Ambattha Sutta is the brahmin teacher. Both Uddalaka and
Pokkharasati are cast in this role, depicted as mature teachers w
demonstrate the proper etiquette in their interactions with the king
and who are rewarded for their good behavior by receiving an impor
tant teaching. However, there is a crucial difference between the two
them. Whereas Uddalaka Aruni is not directly blamed for Svetaketu's
ignorance, in the Ambattha Sutta there is a strong criticism agai
Pokkharasati. Not only does the Buddha tell Ambattha that his teach
has let him down (DN 3.2.5-3.2.6), but Pokkharasati is portrayed
impatient and cruel. Whereas in the Brhadaranyaka Upanis
Uddalaka Aruni is characterized as "fatherly and magnanimo
(Olivelle 1999: 58), his counterpart Pokkharasati berates his studen
even kicking him, and is blamed for Ambattha's rude behavior.
Another crucial dimension of the characterization of both Uddalaka

Aruni and Pokkharasati is the relative hierarchy between them and the
non-brahmin character. Uddalaka Aruni shows humility to the king in
order to receive his teaching. Nevertheless, the hospitality that the king
shows Uddalaka indicates that, despite showing respect, the brahmin
does not completely concede his superior position. This is consistent
with a recurring theme in the Upanisads: brahmins always get paid,
whether they teach or not.15 Thus, the characterization of the knowl
edgeable king does not imply that kings are independent from brah
mins, but rather it emphasizes that successful kings are both educated
in Brahmanical discourse and generous to learned brahmins.
In the Ambattha Sutta, there is less of a compromise. Whereas in
the Upanisads Uddalaka remains more or less an equal to the king
despite not knowing the king's teaching, in the Buddhist tale
Pokkharasati accepts the Buddha as his superior. However, as in the
Upanisads, there is a compromise of sorts. Pokkharasati becomes a lay
supporter, but does not join the sahgha; he takes refuge on behalf of his
family, but does not give up his household. By becoming a lay suppor
ter rather than a bhikkhu, he remains a brahmin.16
The third major character is the non-brahmin, with Pravahana and
the Buddha assuming this role. In both the Brahmanical and Buddhist
versions of this tale, the non-brahmin is the pivotal character, as this
role functions as a way to explore relationships between brahmins and
ksatriyas. The BU version, which emphasizes the proper etiquette for
brahmins to approach the king, presents Pravahana favorably. As
Olivelle suggests, Pravahana is depicted as "loving, patient and humble"
(1999: 58). The Ambattha Sutta expands the role of the non-brahmin,
portraying the Buddha as superior to both Ambattha and Pokkharasati.
The hierarchy between the Buddha and Pokkharasati is negotiated
when the brahmin offers to be a lay follower, a gesture that is compar
able to Uddalaka offering firewood to the king. But whereas the BU bal
ances out this gesture by depicting the king as playing host to the
brahmin, in the Ambattha Sutta it is the brahmin who offers the food.
l5For example, in the CU (5.11-5.24), Asvapati offers to pay Uddalaka Aruni and a number of
other brahmin householders the same amount for receiving a teaching from him as he is paying
the ritual priests for actually performing a sacrifice. For further examples and discussion, see Black
(2007: 105-114).
16As Walshe points out, if Pokkharasati had wanted to become a bhikkhu he might have had to
gain permission from his wife and/or followers: "[Tjhere is of course a big difference between
becoming a lay-follower and joining the Sangha" (1995: 549-550nl66). For a further discussion
about the conflicting attitudes toward brahmins in the Nikayas, see Black (2009).
In addition to the three human characters, the fourth "character"

that appears in both stories is the teaching itself. In the Svetaketu tale
the king reveals the knowledge of the five fires and the two paths of the
dead, while in the Ambattha Sutta the Buddha teaches the four noble
truths. In both stories the drama of the narrative serves to highlight the
importance of the teaching. In the BU, as well as in the CU, the teach
ing is secret and has never been taught to brahmins before, thus charac
terizing the knowledge as unique and esoteric. In the Ambattha Sutta,
the teaching at the end of the story is also taught by a non-brahmin.
However, in contrast to Pravahana's secret teaching, the Buddha's dis
course on the four noble truths is universal.
As we can see, both stories feature the same three central characters:
a brahmin student, his teacher/father, and a non-brahmin, as well as a
fourth "character" in the teaching offered at the end. Additionally, both
stories explore issues of etiquette and class relations by means of con
trasting the actions of the young student with the more humble behav
ior of his teacher in their interactions with the non-brahmin character.
That the Ambattha Sutta shares the same narrative structure and the
same stock characters as the Svetaketu story strongly suggests that this
Buddhist sutta is a reworking of the Upanishadic tale. In making this
point it is not my intention to put forth an argument regarding the
origin of the story. It is quite possible, for example, that this was a
popular story that was picked up independently by both the Brahmanical
and Buddhist textual traditions. Indeed, Cohen (2008: 143) suggests that
none of the extant versions in the Upanisads can be identified as the
'source' for the Svetaketu/Uddalaka story, but that it may have been part
of a popular oral tradition. In other words, merely because this story
probably appeared in the Upanisads before it appeared in Buddhist lit
erature does not necessarily mean that it was originally a Brahmanical
tale. As we will see, however, regardless of where this story originated,
there are a number of shared literary features, which, taken together,
suggest that the Ambattha Sutta was composed by Buddhists with some
degree of familiarity with Brahmanical texts.
THE BUDDHIST BRAHMODYA
As Manne points out, debate is one of the most common scenarios

in the DN, with eighteen of the thirty-four suttas about debate.17 She
17See Black (2009) for a discussion and modification of Manne's classification of encounters
between Buddhists and brahmins as debates.
observes that there are a number of characteristics that these suttas

share in common that mark them out as debate suttas: "A sutta can be
categorized as a Debate when it has at least the following features: two
opponents, viz., the Buddha or a senior monk, and an adversary; a chal
lenge; a refutation; and an admission of defeat" (1990: 45). From our
earlier summary, it is clear that the Ambattha Sutta follows the script of
a debate sutta by containing all of these components.18
In addition to sharing features of debate with other Buddhist suttas,
there are a number of details in the Ambattha Sutta that are specifically
related to accounts of debate (brahmodya) in the Upanishadic literature.
One such similarity is an emphasis on the debating techniques of its
interlocutors. As I have argued elsewhere (Black 2007: 74-80), an inte
gral aspect of philosophical debate in the Upanisads is the attention
paid to tactics. In the Upanishadic brahmodya, contestants win debates
as much by how they conduct their arguments as by the particular dis
courses that they know. Similarly, the Buddha defeats Ambattha, not
because he convinces the young brahmin with Buddhist doctrine, but
rather because of his method of argumentation. The Buddha employs a
number of debating tactics that are characteristic of the ways that brah
mins establish their knowledge in the Upanisads. In particular, the
Buddha uses an etymology, appeals to the authority of ancient verses,
and invokes the authority of Vedic sages. The Buddha utilizes each of
these rhetorical methods—some of which he rarely uses in discussions
with non-brahmins—to demonstrate that he knows the Vedic tradition
better than Ambattha knows it himself.
The Buddha uses an etymology in his argument early on in the
debate when he challenges Ambattha's claim that the brahmins are
superior. After invoking his own ability to remember ancestral lineages
to claim that Ambattha's true ancestors descend from a slave-girl of the
Sakyans, the Buddha then claims that the true meaning of Ambattha's
clan name Kanhayan derives from the word "Kanha," which formerly,
according to the Buddha, was a word of abuse meaning dark-skinned:
18Another potential marker that this is a debate sutta is that both Ambattha and Pokkharasati
are depicted riding chariots, which, according to Manne, constitutes a challenge (1990: 53).
However, the fact that Pokkharasati also drives a chariot when approaching the Buddha in a visit
that clearly does not pose a challenge suggests that the Ambattha Sutta did not take riding chariots
as necessarily indicating a provocation. Rather, in the case of the Ambattha Sutta, reference to
chariots is more likely a symbol of the decadence of the brahmins, as indicated later in this sutta
when the Buddha accuses Ambattha and his teacher of indulging in luxurious pleasures such as
riding in chariots drawn by mares with braided tails (DN 3.2.10). Bodewitz has captured the sense
in which chariots were considered decadent by characterizing them as the "motor-cars" of the
Vedic elite (1974: 90nl7).
"Because, Ambattha, just as people today use the term hobgoblin

(pisaca) as a term of abuse, so in those days they said black (kanha)"
(DN 3.1.16). It is significant that the Buddha would include in his argu
ment an appeal to the original meaning of the word for Ambattha's
clan name, because arguments based on etymology are employed
throughout the Vedas, including the Upanisads. In the Upanishadic
context, these arguments assume the premise that things that sound
alike must have something essential in common, a line of reasoning
that the Buddhists tended to reject.19 The Buddha's use of it here,
however, suggests that he argues with Ambattha in a way that the
young brahmin would understand.
Further in the debate, after pointing out a number of inconsistencies
regarding how Ambattha considers brahmins to be superior, the
Buddha quotes a verse attributed to Brahma Sanankumara:20 "The
Khattitya's best among those who value clan; He with knowledge and
conduct is best of gods and men" (DN 3.1.28).21 Throughout the
Upanisads, quoting verses attributed to specific brahmin teachers is one
of the most common ways to claim authority for a particular doctrine
or argument. Furthermore, a verse in the Mahabharata, ascribed to
Sanatkumara (the Sanskrit name for Sanankumara), suggests that the
Brahmanical tradition associated similar views with the same voice of
authority. Although the words are not exactly the same, in
the Mahabharata Sanatkumara is also discussing relations between the
social classes: "The priestly power is equal to the ruling power; the
ruling power is equal to the priestly power. The king is the highest
dharma, and the master of his subjects" (Mbh 3.183.22).22 The simi
larity between these verses suggests that Sanankumara/Sanatkumara was
associated with views about class, and that when the Buddha cites his
19As Collins points out, however, both Sanskrit and Pali literature had "long and established"
traditions of etymologies and word derivation (1993: 316). Thus, like the Buddha's use of
etymologies in the Agganiia Sutta, it may not be possible to know for sure if the Buddha's
etymology in the Ambattha Sutta is meant to parody Brahmanical claims to knowledge.
Nonetheless, given that the Buddha also uses other arguments that are more characteristic of
Brahmanical modes of thinking than Buddhist ones, I take this instance of an etymology as the
Buddha adopting a Brahmanical debating technique.
20According to the Vedic tradition, Sanatkumara is one of the five mindborn sons of Brahma.
However, in the CU (7.1.1-7.1.3), he is depicted as the brahmin teacher whom Narada approaches
to learn about the self (atman). The CU also refers to Lord Sanatkumara as instructing men in the
way to cross beyond death (7.26.2). Samankumara means "ever virgin" or "ever young" (Walshe
1995: 580n516).
21This verse is also attributed to Brahma Sanankumara in the Agganna Sutta (DN 27.32).
Interestingly, in this sutta the Buddha is also addressing a brahmin audience. Additionally, this
verse appears in the Samyutta Nikaya (1.153; 2.284).
22Translation van Buitenen (1975), slightly modified.
views he assumes that Ambattha would already be familiar with them.

In other words, the Buddha seems to be drawing from the Brahmanical
tradition in order to clinch his argument with the young brahmin.
Finally, toward the end of their encounter, the Buddha invokes the
authority of the first sages of the brahmins, claiming that they were
indeed men of exemplary conduct, but that today's brahmins have
degenerated because they no longer act like them. The Buddha lists the
following sages: Atthaka, Vamaka, Vamadeva, Vessamitta, Yamataggi,
Angirasa, Bharadvaja, Vasettha, Kassapa, and Bhagu.23 As Ryutaro
Tsuchida points out: "Among the ten names listed here only Vamaka is
somewhat obscure, while the other nine are all vernacular forms of the
names of those celebrated seers to whom the authorship of several
Vedic hymns or even some particular books of the Rgveda are tra
ditionally ascribed" (1991: 73). The Buddha concludes his argument,
claiming that, unlike these men, neither Ambattha, nor his teacher, is
truly a sage.
These examples illustrate that the Buddha adopts techniques of
argumentation associated with the brahmins in order to defeat the
young Ambattha in a debate about class and the definition of a true
brahmin, thereby establishing his critique of brahmins on the basis that
he knows more about the brahmins than they know about themselves.
As he demonstrates, he knows their lineages, their verses, and the
names of the Vedic sages. In this way, the Buddha's critique is not
merely that Buddhism is superior to Brahmanism, but also that brah
mins do not live up to the claims that they make about themselves.
Nowhere in his exchange with Ambattha does he reveal one of his own
teachings, but rather he establishes all his arguments by engaging with
the young brahmin about his brahminhood. Importantly, the Buddha
does not dismiss the category of brahmin, but rather he accuses
Ambattha and his teacher of not being true brahmins. First, because
they descend from a slave-girl; second, because their arguments are not
consistent; and third, because they do not act like brahmins. Despite its
harsh critique of brahmins, the Ambattha Sutta does not suggest that
all brahmins should become Buddhists, but rather the text describes the
Buddha redefining what it means to be a brahmin by claiming that
what makes a true brahmin is conduct rather than hereditary lineage.
The lesson for Ambattha and his teacher is that brahminhood is estab
lished by showing respect to the Buddha. The end of the Ambattha
23The Buddha mentions the names of these same ten brahmins in the Tevijja Sutta in his
discussion with Vasettha. Also, this list appears in the Canki Sutta (MN 95.13), the
Donabrahmana Sutta (Anguttara Nikaya 5.20), and in the Mahavagga (6.23.42).
Sutta reinforces this point, as Pokkharasati, despite being transformed

by the Buddha's teaching, does not renounce his life as a brahmin, but
becomes a lay-follower.
That there is a lesson for brahmins to learn from this story perhaps
tells us something about the Ambattha Sutta's anticipated audience. As
Manne (1990) has suggested, not all Buddhist literature addressed the
same group of people. While some suttas are aimed more for those
who were already practicing Buddhists, others, especially those in the
DN, seem more aimed at audiences outside the Buddhist community,
namely brahmins and kings. Indeed, Manne argues that a particular
feature of debate suttas is that they are more likely aimed at a non
Buddhist audience: "A Debate... may be regarded as an exercise in
publicity. It is an opportunity for propaganda. Something is always at
stake. Not only must the best questions be asked, and the best answers
given, but converts must be won and lay supporters must be gained"
(1990: 73).
With its emphasis on the personal dynamics between the Buddha
and brahmins, the Ambattha Sutta seems to address those Buddhists
who encountered brahmins, as well as brahmins themselves.24 For a
Buddhist audience, the Buddha's encounter with Ambattha provides a
model for how his followers could employ Brahmanical ideas in their
debates with brahmins. Of course, it is highly unlikely that all
Buddhists would have been familiar with Upanishadic stories and
methods of argumentation, yet it seems probable that at least some
Buddhists would have known the Brahmanical traditions quite well,
especially those Buddhists who were converted brahmins—those who
had already memorized the oral tradition of their particular sakha. As
Chakravarti has remarked: "[T]he Brahmanas carried along with them
many ideas and beliefs from their earlier environment" (1996: 147).25
For a Brahmanical audience, the message seems to be that they can
support the Buddhist community without giving up their lifestyle; they
can continue to get married and set up a household, as long as they
24Making a similar point regarding the Agganna Sutta, Collins states: "There can be no way of
proving that all, most or any audiences for individual Buddhist texts would have interpreted them
in the light of others: we must argue from internal evidence. I think that the references to
Brahmanical ideas and texts for whose presence Gombrich argues, and those to the Vinaya I
adduce here, suggest that the AS [Agganna Sutta] was composed in and for an educated milieu
familiar with both styles of thought, one which could smile at its wit, and appreciate its serious
intention" (1993: 317-318).
25Tsuchida has made a similar observation: "To be sure, some monks of brahmin background
must have participated as members of the early sarigha in the composition and redaction of
canonical texts, however, perhaps only a small number of them, as laymen, had received an
orthodox Vedic education" (1991: 66). See also Gokhale (1994: 25-42).
declare their allegiance to the Buddha and feed those monks and nuns
who beg for alms. As Gokhale suggests:
That [the brahmins] continued to function as Brahmanas seems a

reasonable assumption. Their becoming upasakas [lay supporters] did
not signify their giving up the old 'caste' status All that such a
"conversion" involved was a kind of special relationship between the
Brahmana and the Buddha and his movement. It indicated the absence
of resistance to the new Buddhist movement by these Brahmanas, their
giving up practices especially objectionable, such as animal sacrifices,
and their making donations to Buddhist establishments in the area.
(1994: 32-33)
If we assume that brahmins were a target audience for this sutta, then
perhaps it is not so surprising to see the pro-Buddhist message framed
within the familiar Svetaketu story. This was already a well-known tale
about the benefits of properly respecting the king. The Buddhist version
uses the same scenario and extends the message to how to treat a Buddhist.
HEAD SHATTERING AND THE BUDDHIST BRAHMODYA
Now that we have discussed the importance of debate in the

Ambattha Sutta, as well as the possibility that this sutta was intended
for a brahmin audience, let us return to a particular incident withi
this story that has provoked debate among Indologists: the Buddha'
use of the head-shattering threat.26
When the Buddha questions Ambattha about whether he knows
that his family descends from a slave-girl, he threatens the young
brahmin that failure to answer this question will result in his head shat
tering into seven pieces:
Then, the Lord said to Ambattha: "Ambattha, I have a fundamental

question for you, which you will not like to answer. If you don't
answer, or evade the issue, if you keep silent or go away, your head
will split into seven pieces. What do you think Ambattha? Have you
heard from old and venerable brahmins, teachers of teachers, where
the Kanhayans came from, or who was their ancestor?" (DN 3.1.20)
Ambattha is asked twice and on both occasions he remains silent. Then

the Buddha warns him: "Answer me now, Ambattha, this is not a time
26The Buddha also uses this threat in the Culasaccaka Sutta (MN 35.13-35.14) in a debate with
the Jain Saccaka. See also a reference to head shattering in the Kutadanta Sutta (DN 5.21).
for silence. Whoever, Ambattha, does not answer a fundamental ques

tion put to him by a Tathagata by the third asking has his head split
into seven pieces [sattadha muddha phalissati]" (DN 3.1.20).
Although the threat of head shattering does not appear in the
Svetaketu story, it is a common feature in Upanishadic literature.
Indeed, in the Upanisads this threat is often what distinguishes a brah
modya from other dialogical situations (see Black 2007: 64-65, 80-88).
Along with his use of etymology, appeal to Vedic verses, and his invo
cation of Vedic rsis, the Buddha's use of the head-shattering threat in
the Ambattha Sutta appears to be another indication that this scene is a
debate.
According to Stanley Insler, however, the appearance of the head
shattering motif in the Ambattha Sutta signifies that the young
brahmin is being punished for the crime of falsifying his identity
(1989-90: 102-104). In making this claim, Insler observes some impor
tant parallels between the Ambattha Sutta and the story of Yavakri in
the JB. In this scene Yavakri Saumastambhi is about to rape an apsara,
when a gandharva appears with a metal hammer (JB 2.269). As a pun
ishment, the gandharva demands that Yavakri cut off the heads of all
the animals in the surrounding area. Before completing the slaughter,
however, Yavakri himself is killed by a woodsman. Curiously, the text
states that when the other animals woke up, they assumed that Yavakri
had been killed by the gandharva. Although Yavakrl's death is not
caused by the gandharva's blow, this story suggests that head shattering
is a literal act that is conducted with a hammer. Moreover, according to
Insler, head shattering is introduced as a punishment for a specific
crime, as Yavakri is punished for attempting to rape the Apsara.
Insler suggests that the Ambattha Sutta uses the threat of head shat
tering in a similar way—that the Buddha introduces this threat as a
punishment for Ambattha's specific crime of falsifying his identity. In
his analysis of both stories, Insler makes the important point that the
head-shattering motif can be employed by different texts in different
ways. The Yavakri story, as he demonstrates, is quite different from the
brahmodya episodes, not only in terms of what the story is about, but
also in its use of language, specifically the ways it expresses head shat
tering (1989-90: 105). Despite his excellent analysis of the Yavakri
story, however, I find Insler's explanation of head shattering as a form
of punishment to be less convincing in the case of the Ambattha Sutta.
Crucially, there is no evidence in the Ambattha Sutta to suggest that
Ambattha is being charged with committing a crime. Within the
context of the story, the reason the Buddha threatens Ambattha is not
because the young brahmin is falsifying his identity, but because he is
not answering the Buddha's question.27 After Ambattha eventually does

answer the question and admits that he knows the truth about his
ancestors, the Buddha does not punish him for lying, or for falsifying
his identity, but rather begins to defend Ambattha in front of his
followers.
Significantly, Ambattha's initial refusal to answer the Buddha's
question is because he does not want to admit that he knows what the
Buddha knows: the truth about his family's lineage. In other words,
Ambattha is not so much falsifying his identity as he is falsifying his
knowledge. When we read the episode in this way, then we can see the
similarities with Upanishadic accounts where head shattering constitu
tes a threat made against someone who makes false claims about what
he or she knows. The difference, of course, is that in the Upanisads
brahmins are threatened for claiming to know more than they do,
whereas the Buddha threatens Ambattha for implying that he knows
less than he does.
Thus, returning to Insler's argument, I would agree that there are
similarities between the Yavakri story and the Ambattha Sutta—most
important, in my opinion, is that both stories equate a hammer with
carrying out the threat of smashing the head. However, what I object to
is Insler's suggestion that any similarities with the Yavakri story necess
arily imply that the Ambattha Sutta does not draw from debating epi
sodes: "could it be that these tales of rape and falsification of identity
represent a very different origin and situation from those found in the
stories describing the so-called shattered head in Brahmanic disputa
tion?" (1989-90: 105). Here, Insler seems to be relying on his notion of
a "fixed motif," which assumes that narrative elements that appear
together on one occasion, necessarily appear together on other
occasions as well.28 Even if certain narrative elements are drawn from
27Additionally, there is no mention of head shattering as a punishment in the Buddhist law

code. The Mahavagga (2.3.3), for example, addresses a situation similar to the one facing
Ambattha, stating that when a bhikkhu is asked a question three times and knowingly omits to
declare a fault, then he is guilty of uttering a conscious lie. This passage, as well as others, suggests
that it was a breach of the disciplinary code to lie to the Buddha, yet nowhere in the Buddhist
literature is head splitting offered as a punishment (see also the Pacitttiya section of the
Patimokkha and Mahavagga 2.3.7). If anything, the most severe punishment for this crime is
banishment from the sangha. Incidentally, there is no mention of head shattering as a punishment
in the Brahmanical law codes either, despite Insler's attempts to link head shattering to a statement
in the Manava Dharmasastra (The Law Code of Manu; Olivelle 2004) (11.56) that dishonesty
about one's ancestry is the equivalent to slaying a brahmin.
28Insler describes the loss of head and the use of a hammer—two narrative elements that appear
in both the Ambattha Sutta and the Yavakri story—as corresponding to "an original single motif'
(1989-90: 103; see also p. 117, where Insler discusses false identity and head shattering as a "fixed
motif').
the Yavakri story, the Ambattha Sutta is—as I demonstrated in the pre
vious section—primarily a story about debate.29 The attempt to read
this sutta as a tale of crime and punishment appears to me to be quite
forced.
When we take the Buddha's encounter with Ambattha as a debating
episode, then we can see that the head-shattering threat as it appears in
the Ambattha Sutta has a direct parallel in a scene from the BU, in
which Yajnavalkya debates against eight challengers in King Janaka's
court (BU 3). In this episode, Yajnavalkya threatens his final opponent,
Sakalya, that if he does not answer a direct question, then his head will
shatter.30 Climactically, this scene ends with Sakalya's death. While it
may be too strong to claim that he kills Sakalya, by forcing him to
answer a direct question, Yajnavalkya does have a degree of agency in
bringing about his opponent's death. That his other opponents seem to
recognize Yajnavalkya's role in forcing the circumstances under which
Sakalya dies is suggested by the fact that none of them dare to oppose
him further when he invites more challenges after this fatal encounter.
The debate between the Buddha and Ambattha is, of course,
without casualties, yet the Buddha and Yajnavalkya are comparable not
only because they both use the threat of head shattering, but also
because they both use this threat in the same way: to force their
opponents to answer a direct question. A crucial difference, of course, is
that whereas Yajnavalkya accuses Sakalya of not knowing the answer,
Ambattha knows the answer to the Buddha's question all too well.
The similarities between the situations that face Ambattha and
Sakalya become more pronounced when looked at within the context of
the similarities between the Ambattha Sutta and the Svetaketu story, as
well as other narrative elements that the Buddhist suttas share with the
Upanisads. By wielding the well-known Brahmanical threat of head
shattering, the Buddha is cast in a similar light as great brahmin tea
chers such as Yajnavalkya and Uddalaka Aruni, both of whom are
specifically associated with this threat in the Brahmanas and Upanisads.
As Manne observes: "[The Buddhists] may have needed to present their
religious leader the way that the brahman sages were represented: as a
champion of debate in order to enhance his credibility" (1990: 70). This
point is especially relevant if we assume that the brahmins were part of
29Nonetheless, the shared detail of the celestial being wielding a hammer indicates that the
composers of the Ambattha Sutta might have been drawing from the JB as well. This further
suggests that Buddhist composers had at least a general—if not an extremely detailed—familiarity
with Brahmanical sources.
30See Steven Lindquist's paper in this issue for an extended discussion of this scene.
the anticipated audience for this text. However, although similar to

Yajnavalkya in some ways, when the Buddha makes the threat the
yakkha appears, clearly showing that the hammer is not in the hands of
the teacher of non-violence. Thus, unlike Yajnavalkya, whose direct
questioning implicates him in Sakalya's death, the Buddha is not
directly associated with carrying out any potential violence. Steven
Lindquist (see his paper in this issue) makes a strong case that within
the narrative context of the BU, Sakalya's death makes a larger philoso
phical point about death and immortality. In the context of the
Ambattha Sutta, however, I think a different sort of point is made:
Ambattha cannot die because the Buddha must be portrayed as com
passionate. Moreover, the conclusion leaves open the possibility of con
version, as brahmins such as Ambattha—and particularly his teacher—
are depicted as potential lay followers and patrons, whose support is
necessary for the survival of the sahgha.
CONCLUSION
The similarities that the Ambattha Sutta has with the Svetaketu
story, as well as other narratives in the Upanisads, suggest a connection
between the Brahmanical and Buddhist narrative traditions. Indeed,
there are other examples in the Pali Canon where an episode featuring
the Buddha shares a similar literary paradigm with a tale from the
Upanisads.31 As I have suggested, the Svetaketu story would have been
particularly useful to the Buddhists because it already addresses
relations between brahmins and non-brahmins. The Ambattha Sutta
shifts this focus from how brahmins should treat the king, to how brah
mins should treat the Buddha. In this way, what makes the Ambattha
Sutta innovative is that it uses an already familiar story to attract
brahmin support for Buddhism.
At the end of his article about the young Svetaketu, Olivelle
remarks: "The Upanisads have been generally studied for their philoso
phical insights. A study such as this, hopefully, will encourage us to
read these wonderful documents also as works of literature" (1999: 65).
Olivelle's observations could also be said about how scholars have
treated the relationship between the Upanisads and early Buddhist
texts. Many have argued, for example, that the Buddhist concept of no
self (anatmanlanatta) was a rejection of or reaction to the Upanishadic
31The Samannaphala Sutta (DN 2) contains a scene with the same structure as one of the
brahmodyas in the BU (4.1). See Deussen [1897] (2004: 475), Goto (2005: 72n4), and Black (2007:
70-74).
notion of permanent self (atman) (see, e.g., Collins 1982; Gethin 1998;
Hamilton 2000). However, less scholarly attention has been paid to the
literary connections between the Brahmanical and Buddhist traditions,
particularly the similar use of narrative and dialogue to frame their
teachings. Indeed, I would suggest that this is one of the most signifi
cant common features between the Upanisads and early Buddhist texts.
Whereas the Buddhists rejected many of the core teachings of the
Upanisads, they adopted comparable modes of expression, not only
introducing their discourses with narratives and dialogues, but also
using some of the same stories, scenarios, and motifs.
REFERENCES
Black, Brian The Character of the Self in Ancient India:

2007 Priests, Kings and Women in the Early
Upanisads. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
2009 "Rivals and Benefactors: Encounters Between

Buddhists and Brahmins in the Nikayas."
Religions of South Asia 3/1:25-43.
Forthcoming "The Rhetoric of Secrecy in the Upanisads." In

Religion and Identity in South Asia and Beyond:
Essays in Honor of Patrick Olivelle, ed.
Steven Lindquist. Firenze, Italy: Societa Editrice
Fiorentina.
Bodewitz, H. W. "Vedic Dhavayati 'To Drive.'" Indo-Iranian

1974 Journal 16:81-95.
Bronkhorst, Johannes Greater Magadha: Studies in the Culture of

2007 Early India. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
Chakravarti, Uma The Social Dimensions of Early Buddhism.

1996 Delhi, India: Munishiram Manoharlal.
Chandra, Pratap "Was Early Buddhism Influenced by the

1971 Upanisads?" Philosophy East and West 21/3:
317-324.
Cohen, Signe Text and Authority in the Older Upanisads.

2008 Leiden, The Netherlands and Boston, MA: Brill.
Collins, Steven Selfless Persons: Imagery and Thought in

1982 Therevada Buddhism. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
"The Discourse on What Is Primary (Agganna

Sutta): An Annotated Translation." Journal of
Indian Philosophy 21:301-393.
Davids, T. W. Rhys, trans. Dialogues of the Buddha, Part I. London, UK:

[1899] 1969 Sacred Books of the Buddhists.
Davids, T. W. Rhys and The Dlgha Nikaya, Volume I. London, UK: The
}. Estlin Carpenter, ed. Pali Text Society.
[1890] 1975
Davids, T. W. Rhys and Vinaya Texts: Volumes I-III. Delhi, India:

Hermann Oldenberg, Motilal Banarsidass.
trans.
[1885] 1990
Deussen, Paul, trans. Sixty Upanisads of the Veda. Translated from

[1897] 2004 the German by V. M. Bedekar and
G. B. Palsule. Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass.
Gethin, Rupert The Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford, UK:

1998 Oxford University Press.
Gokhale, B. G. New Light on Early Buddhism. Bombay, India:

1994 Popular Prakshan.
Gombrich, Richard F. How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis
1996 of the Early Teachings. London, UK: Athlone.
Goto, Toshifumi "Yajnavalkya's Characterization of Atman and

2005 the Four Kinds of Suffering in Early
Buddhism." Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies
12/2:71-85.
Hamilton, Sue Early Buddhism: A New Approach: The I of the

2000 Beholder. Surrey, UK: Curzon.
Insler, Stanley "The Shattered Head Split in the Epic Tale of

1989-90 Shakuntala." Bulletin d'Etudes Indiennes 7-8:
97-139.
Manne, Joy "Categories of Sutta in the Pali Nikayas and

1990 Their Implications for Our Appreciation of the
Buddhist Teaching and Literature." Journal of
the Pali Text Society XV:29-87.
"The Digha Nikaya Debates: Debating Practices

at the Time of the Buddha." Buddhist Studies
Review 9/2:117-136.
Olivelle, P. ed. and trans. The Early Upanisads: A

1998 Translation. New York, NY: Oxford
Press.
Olivelle, Patrick "Young Svetaketu: A Liter

1999 Upanisadic Story." Journal of th
Oriental Society 119/1:46-70.
trans. 2004 The Law Code of Manu. Oxford

University Press.
Sohnen, Renate "Die Einleitungsgeschichte de

1981 Uddalaka Aruni: Ein Vergleich der drei
Fassungen Kausitaki 1.1, Chandogya 5.3 und
Brhadaranyaka 6.21-8." Studien zur Indologie
und Iranistik 7:177-213.
Sukthankar, Vishnu The Mahabharata for the First Time Critically

Sitarama, et al., ed. Edited. Poona, India: Bhandarkar Oriental
1933-66 Research Institute.
Tsuchida, Ryutaro "Two Categories of brahmins in the Early

1991 Buddhist Period." Memoirs of the Research
Department of the Toyo Bunko. 49, 51-95.
Tokyo, Japan: Toyo Bunko.
Buitenen, J. A. B„ The Mahabharata Books 1-5. Chicago,

trans. Chicago University Press.
1973-78
Walshe, Maurice, trans. The Long Discourses of the Buddha: A

1995 Translation of the Digha Nikaya. Boston, MA:
Wisdom Publication.
Witzel, Michael "The Case of the Shattered Head." Studien zur

1987 Indologie und Iranistik 13/14:363-415.

Amba Ha and Śvetaketu - Literary Connections Between The Upani Ads and Early Buddhist Narratives (2011)

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Amba Ha and Śvetaketu - Literary Connections Between The Upani Ads and Early Buddhist Narratives (2011)

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Ambaṭṭha and Śvetaketu: Literary Connections Between the Upaniṣads and Early Buddhist

This paper focuses on similarities between two literary characters:

THE DIALOGICAL RELATIONSHIP between the Brahmanical and

In this paper, I will suggest that another place where Svetaketu

THE SVETAKETU STORY IN THE UPANISADS

Let us begin by looking at the Svetaketu story in the Upanisads.

'According to Bronkhorst, the Sankritized version of Ambattha's name is Ambastha, which

the viewpoint of the respective author, and the additions, subtractions,

knowledge with the brahmin, but eventually Uddalaka's mode of behav

3For a discussion of secrecy in the Upanisads, see Black (forthcoming).

THE AMBATTHA SUTTA4

fact, when he initially arrives he is quite courteous. He coughs and knocks

COMPARING THE SVETAKETU STORY AND THE

When looking at the Ambattha Sutta alongside the Svetaketu story,

ancestry. However, neither young brahmin concedes defeat, as both run

Another crucial dimension of the characterization of both Uddalaka

In addition to the three human characters, the fourth "character"

THE BUDDHIST BRAHMODYA

As Manne points out, debate is one of the most common scenarios

observes that there are a number of characteristics that these suttas

"Because, Ambattha, just as people today use the term hobgoblin

views he assumes that Ambattha would already be familiar with them.

Sutta reinforces this point, as Pokkharasati, despite being transformed

That [the brahmins] continued to function as Brahmanas seems a

HEAD SHATTERING AND THE BUDDHIST BRAHMODYA

Now that we have discussed the importance of debate in the

Then, the Lord said to Ambattha: "Ambattha, I have a fundamental

Ambattha is asked twice and on both occasions he remains silent. Then

for silence. Whoever, Ambattha, does not answer a fundamental ques

not answering the Buddha's question.27 After Ambattha eventually does

27Additionally, there is no mention of head shattering as a punishment in the Buddhist law

the anticipated audience for this text. However, although similar to

Black, Brian The Character of the Self in Ancient India:

2009 "Rivals and Benefactors: Encounters Between

Forthcoming "The Rhetoric of Secrecy in the Upanisads." In

Bodewitz, H. W. "Vedic Dhavayati 'To Drive.'" Indo-Iranian

Bronkhorst, Johannes Greater Magadha: Studies in the Culture of

Chakravarti, Uma The Social Dimensions of Early Buddhism.

Chandra, Pratap "Was Early Buddhism Influenced by the

Cohen, Signe Text and Authority in the Older Upanisads.

Collins, Steven Selfless Persons: Imagery and Thought in

"The Discourse on What Is Primary (Agganna

Davids, T. W. Rhys, trans. Dialogues of the Buddha, Part I. London, UK:

Davids, T. W. Rhys and Vinaya Texts: Volumes I-III. Delhi, India:

Deussen, Paul, trans. Sixty Upanisads of the Veda. Translated from

Gethin, Rupert The Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford, UK:

Gokhale, B. G. New Light on Early Buddhism. Bombay, India:

Goto, Toshifumi "Yajnavalkya's Characterization of Atman and

Hamilton, Sue Early Buddhism: A New Approach: The I of the

Insler, Stanley "The Shattered Head Split in the Epic Tale of

Manne, Joy "Categories of Sutta in the Pali Nikayas and

"The Digha Nikaya Debates: Debating Practices

Olivelle, P. ed. and trans. The Early Upanisads: A

Olivelle, Patrick "Young Svetaketu: A Liter

trans. 2004 The Law Code of Manu. Oxford

Sohnen, Renate "Die Einleitungsgeschichte de

Sukthankar, Vishnu The Mahabharata for the First Time Critically

Tsuchida, Ryutaro "Two Categories of brahmins in the Early

Buitenen, J. A. B„ The Mahabharata Books 1-5. Chicago,

Walshe, Maurice, trans. The Long Discourses of the Buddha: A

Witzel, Michael "The Case of the Shattered Head." Studien zur

S-ar putea să vă placă și