1

Johannes Bronkhorst
johannes.bronkhorst@unil.ch

A note on ramaas and brhmaas

(to appear in: Festschrift in Honor of Boris Oguibnine, eds. Guillaume Ducoeur, Victoria Grace, and
Nataliya Yanchevskaya. Cambridge, MA: Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University)

Aokas thirteenth Rock Edict states that there is no country where these (two) classes
(nikya), (viz.) the Brahmins and the ramaas, do not exist, except among the Greeks
(yona).1 Can we conclude from this that there were Brahmins as well as ramaas in all
countries, i.e., presumably, in all parts of Aokas empire?
Such a conclusion may not be justified. It appears that the expression Brahmins
and ramaas, or ramaas and Brahmins, was used as a single expression that
referred to all those who were either Brahmins or ramaas. In concrete terms, this
would mean that Aokas statement does imply that there were either Brahmins or
ramaas in all parts of his empire, but not necessarily both at the same time.
Conceivably there were countries with Brahmins but without ramaas, and others
with ramaas but without Brahmins. Clearly, Aokas testimony must be dealt with with
much care.
What reason is there to look upon the expression Brahmins and ramaas in this
manner? Note to begin with that Aokas inscriptions often refer to Brahmins and
ramaas together, but never to ramaas separately, and only occasionally to
Brahmins.2
Then there is the observation by the grammarian Patajali (ca. 150 BCE) to the
extent that the two terms form a singular neuter compound ramaabrhmaam,
presumably because they are in constant opposition to each other.3 For our present
purposes the crucial fact is that, also in Patajalis time and culture, Brahmins and

In the Kalsi version: natthi c e janapade yatt natthi ime niky na()t yoneu bahane c
samae c (Bloch, 1950: 128). Tr. Hultzsch, 1925: 47, modified; cp. Schneider, 1978: 73.
2
Brahmins on their own are mentioned in Rock Edict 5 (Bloch, 1950: 104) and in an isolated
Minor Rock Edict in Eagui (Bloch, 1950: 151).
3
Mah-bh I p. 476 l. 9 (under P. 2.4.12 vt. 2): ye ca virodha ity asyvaka /
ramaabrhmaam /; l. 11-12: cakrakaraasya prayojana yem ca virodha vatikas
te dvandva ekavacanam eva yath syt.

ramaas were apparently frequently referred to together, so much so that this specific
compound had come into existence.
This same compound, but not this time in the singular neuter but rather in the
plural masculine (samaabrhma), is frequent in the Pli canon. This confirms once
again that the two, ramaas and Brahmins, were often thought of together, as together
constituting one group. Here, as in the case of the inscriptions of Aoka, the question
comes up: do references in the Pli canon to ramaas and Brahmins necessarily
concern collections of individuals among which there are at least some ramaas and
some Brahmins? At least one passage in the Pli canon shows that they do not.
This passage occurs in the Devadaha Sutta of the Majjhima Nikya. Here the
Buddha is presented as attributing to some ramaas and Brahmins a position which no
Brahmin at the time is likely to have held, but which the passage itself attributes to
Jainas. Jaina ascetics certainly were ramaas, they were not Brahmins. The passage
reads as follows:4

Santi, bhikkhave, eke samaabrhma eva-vdino eva-dihino: ya kicya

purisapuggalo paisavedeti, sukha v dukkha v adukkhamasukha v,
sabban ta pubbekatahetu; iti purna kammna tapas vyantbhv,
navna kammna akara yati anavassavo, yati anavassav
kammakkhayo, kammakkhay dukkhakkhayo, dukkhakkhay vedankkhayo,
vedankkhay sabba dukkha nijjia bhavissat'ti. Evavdino, bhikkhave,
Nigah.
Bhikkhus, there are some ramaas and Brahmins (samaabrhma) who hold
such a doctrine and view as this: Whatever this person feels, whether pleasure or
pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by what was done in the past.
So by annihilating with asceticism past actions and by doing no fresh actions,
there will be no consequence in the future. With no consequence in the future,
there is the destruction of action. With the destruction of action, there is the
destruction of suffering. With the destruction of suffering, there is the destruction
of feeling. With the destruction of feeling, all suffering will be exhausted. So
speak the Nigahas, bhikkhus.
The ramaas and Brahmins referred to in this passage are, as is clear from the passage
itself, Jainas.

MN II p. 214. Tr. amoli & Bodhi, 1995: 827, modified.

Another interesting passage is the question addressed by the wanderer

(paribbjaka) Subhadda to the dying Buddha, which has the following shape:5

ye 'me bho Gotama samaabrhma saghino gaino gacariy t yasassino

titthakar sdhusammat ca bahujanassa, seyyathda Prao Kassapo, Makkhali
Goslo, Ajita-Kesakambal, Pakudho Kaccyano, Sajayo Belaha-putto,
Nigaho Nthaputto, sabbe te sakya paiya abbhaasu, sabbe va na
abbhaasu, ekacce abbhaasu ekacce na abbhaasti?
Venerable Gotama, all those ramaas and Brahmins (samaabrhma) who
have orders and followings, who are teachers, well-known and famous as founders
of schools, and popularly regarded as saints, like Praa Kassapa, Makkhali
Gosla, Ajita Kesakambal, Pakudha Kaccyana, Sajaya Belahaputta and the
Nigaha Nthaputta have they all realised the truth as they all make out, or
have none of them realised it, or have some realised it and some not?
The names enumerated are those of the six heretics frequently mentioned in the Pli
canon, prominently so in the Smaaphala Sutta of the Dgha Nikya (DN I p. 47 ff.).6
Smaa means ramaaship, so that it is clear that the teachers figuring in it are
ramaas. In other words, there are no Brahmins among the ramaas and Brahmins
of this passage.
The beginning of the Smaaphala Sutta is interesting in the present context.
King Ajtaatru is here presented as expressing the wish to visit a ramaa or a
Brahmin.7 Only ramaas figure in the remainder of the Sutta.
A systematic search may bring to light further passages that show that ramaas
and Brahmins was used as a fixed expression and did not in each and every case have to
refer to both ramaas and Brahmins; such an exhaustive search is beyond the scope of
this note. Of the three passages from the Pli canon considered, the first one is crucial in
the present context, because it ascribes to ramaas and Brahmins a position which, to
the best of our knowledge, no Brahmin held at that time.

So what can we conclude from the Aokan inscription with which we started? We cannot
conclude from it that there were both Brahmins and ramaas in all parts of the Maurya
5

DN II p. 150-51. Tr. Walshe, 1987: 268, modified.

See, e.g., Basham, 1951: 10 ff.
7
DN I p. 47: Ka nu khajja samaa v brhmaa v payirupseyyma, ya no payirupsato
citta pasdeyyti. Can we not today visit some ramaa or Brahmin, to visit whom would bring
peace to our heart? tr. Walshe, 1987: 91, modified.
6

empire. This is interesting, because it implies that we cannot conclude from this
inscription that there were Brahmins in all parts of the Maurya empire. Indeed, there are
good reasons to think that Brahmins did not reach certain parts of this area until late,
often later than the arrival of Buddhism and/or Jainism. The Aokan inscription could in
this respect be a source of confusion. We now know that it should not be.
The inscription further state that there were neither ramaas nor Brahmins
among the Greeks at the time of Aoka. We may assume that the Greek parts of the
Maurya empire were meant. Aokan inscriptions in Greek have been found in Kandahar.8
One wonders whether Gandhra (or Greater Gandhra) was considered Greek by
Aoka. The absence of Brahmins in the region is no surprise: brahmanical influence there
remained feeble for a long time.9 We know that Buddhism reached this region early,
perhaps already under Aoka. Aokas inscription forces us to choose between three
options: (i) Aoka (or his scribe) did not know that Buddhism had reached Gandhra; (ii)
Buddhism had not yet reached Gandhra at that time; (iii) Aoka did not think of
Gandhra as being inhabited by Greeks (yona). Since the fifth Rock Edict distinguishes
between Greeks, Kambojas and inhabitants of Gandhra, option (iii) seems most
appropriate.

References:
Basham, A. L. (1951): History and Doctrines of the jvikas. A vanished Indian religion.
Reprint: Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi etc., 1981.
Bloch, Jules (1950): Les inscriptions dAsoka. Traduites et commentes. Paris: Les Belles
Lettres.
Bronkhorst, Johannes (2011): Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism. Leiden - Boston:
Brill. (Handbook of Oriental Studies, 2/24.)
Falk, Harry (2006): Aokan Sites and Artefacts. A source-book with bibliography. Mainz
am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. (Monographien zur indischen Archologie, 18.)
Hultzsch, E. (1925): Inscriptions of Asoka. New edition. (Corpus Inscriptionum
Indicarum, 1.) Reprint: Indological Book House, Delhi Varanasi, 1969.
amoli, Bhikkhu & Bodhi, Bhikkhu (1995): The Middle Length Discourses of the
Buddha. A new translation of the Majjhima Nikya. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Rhys Davids, T. W. and C. A. F. (1920): Dialogues of the Buddha. Translated from the
Pali of the Dgha Nikya. Part II. London: The Pali Text Society. 1977.
Schneider, Ulrich (1978): Die grossen Felsen-Edikte Aokas. Kritische Ausgabe,
8
9

Falk, 2006: 242 ff.

Bronkhorst, 2011: chapter III.7.

bersetzung und Analyse der Texte. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. (Freiburger

Beitrge zur Indologie, 11.)
Walshe, Maurice (1987): The Long Discourses of the Buddha. A translation of the Dgha
Nikya. Boston: Wisdom Publications. 1995.

Abbreviations:
DN
Mah-bh
MN
PTS

Dghanikya, ed. T.W. Rhys Davids, J.E. Carpenter, 3 vols. 1890-1911

(PTS)
Patajali, (Vykaraa-)Mahbhya, ed. F. Kielhorn, Bombay 1880-1885
Majjhima-Nikya, ed. V. Trenckner, R. Chalmers, 3 vols., London 18881899 (PTS)
Pali Text Society, London