Brahmans in early Jaina suttas

I will start with the earliest extant Jaina literature: Prakrit Śvetāmbara suttas. The oldest of the Śvetāmbara suttas are the Āyāraṃga, Sūyagaḍaṃga, and Uttarajjhayaṇa. Book 1 of the Āyāraṃga is considered the oldest strata of the suttas because it uses metres that are similar to those found in Pali Buddhist suttas. It cannot be older than the fourth century bce if the Pali canon was redacted in 377 bce.Footnote ³ That said, no book was composed by one author at one time. Judging from the internal variation of metres, style, and discourses therein, book 1 of the Āyāraṃga was most likely composed by multiple authors over a period of time.Footnote ⁴ Book 1 of the Sūyagaḍaṃga, though often viewed as contemporaneous with Āyāraṃga I, could not have been composed in its entirety before the second century bce because certain lectures show familiarity with Buddhist Abhidhamma.Footnote ⁵ Scholars agree that books 2 of the Āyāraṃga and the Sūyagaḍaṃga were added later because they show significant departures in style, terminology, and discourse from the first books of their respective sutta. How much later is unclear. Some lectures in these books, I will demonstrate, evidence familiarity with brahmanical discourses composed just before the beginning of the Common Era. The Uttarajjhayaṇa is undoubtedly the youngest of the three oldest suttas. It has been assigned to the mid-second century bce–fifth century ce.Footnote ⁶ However, based on its references to brahman identity, which I detail in this section, I suggest the Uttarajjhayaṇa could not have been composed before the second century ce.

We cannot dispense with the dates of Jaina suttas. If no extant Jaina sutta can be assigned to a time before the fourth century bce, then Vedic representations of brahmanhood predate all Jaina representations. Whatever Jaina suttas say about brahmans, they are saying it in a context in which brahmanhood was already an identification of Vedic ritual specialists from at least 1200–1000 bce onwards. Indeed, some Buddhist suttas call the Buddha a brahman, as Nathan McGovern shows.Footnote ⁷ So, when the Jaina suttas write about brahmanhood from the fourth century bce onwards, they are doing so in an era in which brahman identity had long been associated with Vedic ritualists, and was sometimes co-opted and contested by near-contemporaneous Buddhist writers.

In this context, how do the oldest Jaina suttas represent brahmans? This is the question that I answer in this section. It is a question that had been partially answered by McGovern with respect to book 1 of the Āyāraṃga and, to a lesser extent, book 1 of the Sūyagaḍaṃga.Footnote ⁸ According to McGovern, Āyāraṃga I presents brahmans not as religious others but as the religious self. That is to say, it identifies brahmans as the Jina and celibate Jaina ascetics. On the basis of this evidence, McGovern infers that brahmanhood is an identifying marker of Jaina celibate ascetics, and that the authors of Āyāraṃga book 1 understand brāhmaṇa to be synonymous with samaṇa, bhikkhu, muṇi, and niggantha.Footnote ⁹

In this section, I add specification to McGovern’s claims about book 1 of the Āyāraṃga and I expand the scope of evidence to include Āyāraṃga II, Sūyagaḍaṃga II, and Uttarajjhayaṇa with the goal of providing a comprehensive examination of brahmanhood in the oldest strata of Jaina literature. What I find is the following. Across all the oldest suttas, brahmanhood is consistently a site for thinking about Jaina ascetics. That does not mean that all brahmans cited in all Jaina suttas are celibate Jaina ascetics however these ascetics are named. Far from it. There exist multiple approaches to brahmanhood in each sutta, each book, and sometimes in each lecture. Some lectures present brahmans in opposition to the Jinas, others co-opt the label for Jaina ascetics, others cite brahmans neutrally as a distinct group who, like Jaina mendicants, receive alms from the general population. This multiplicity of approaches betrays the dialogues that Jaina writers were having over the identification of brahmanhood. By the time that the Uttarajjhayaṇa was composed, these dialogues about brahmanhood become more frequent and more specific than in earlier suttas. Nevertheless, what stays the same across these suttas is the stake. At stake is always defining the identity and practice of Jaina ascetics.

First things first: since the Jaina suttas are written in Ardhamāgadhī, what do they call brahmans? Māhaṇa and baṃbhaṇa. Of the two options, māhaṇa is most frequently used even though it is impossible to derive māhaṇa from the Sanskrit brāhmaṇa.Footnote ¹⁰ Māhaṇa is unique to Jaina literature, appearing neither in Prakrit inscriptions nor in non-Jaina Prakrit literature. The correct rendering of brāhmaṇa into Ardhamāgadhī is baṃbhaṇa. Yet, baṃbhaṇa is absent from the Āyāraṃga and Sūyagaḍaṃga. It appears for the first time in Jaina literature in the youngest of the three suttas, the Uttarajjhayaṇa. Similarly, the term diya (skt. dvija), which is adopted as a synonym for brāhmaṇa in younger brahmanical dharmasūtras from the second–first century bce,Footnote ¹¹ is also never found in Jaina suttas before the Uttarajjhayaṇa.

Table 1.

Distribution of terms across early śvetāmbara suttas

Table 1 Long description

Counts are given for three terms across five texts labeled AyaSu I, AyaSu II, Suya I, Suya II, and UttSu. For, mahana, the counts are 13 in AyaSu I, 33 in AyaSu II, 21 in Suya I, 28 in Suya II, and 31 in UttSu. For, bambhana, the counts are 0 in AyaSu I, 0 in AyaSu II, 0 in Suya I, 0 in Suya II, and 4 in UttSu. For, diya, the counts are 0 in AyaSu I, 0 in AyaSu II, 0 in Suya I, 0 in Suya II, and 3 in UttSu.

Āyāraṃga I cites māhaṇa the least number of times.Footnote ¹² There are 13 references in total. Only two of these are found in lectures 1 through to 6: one reference refers to the Jina,Footnote ¹³ whereas the second refers to māhaṇas and samaṇas who propagate violence towards living beings.Footnote ¹⁴ The remaining 11 references are located in the final two books of Āyāraṃga I.Footnote ¹⁵ Books 7 and 8 almost always use māhaṇa to refer to the Jina or Jaina ascetic. The context is usually the same. The author attributes a teaching to ‘the wise māhaṇa’ (māhaṇeṇa maīmayā), who is presumably Mahāvīra.Footnote ¹⁶ In two cases, māhaṇa refers to a Jaina ascetic without explanation as to what makes them a māhaṇa.Footnote ¹⁷ Finally, out of all 11 references in books 7 and 8, only one refers to a group who, alongside samaṇas, beggars, guests, and cāṇḍalas, beg for alms in the same regions as the Jina.Footnote ¹⁸ There is nothing in these passages to suggest that these māhaṇas are Jaina ascetics. Māhaṇas are listed as a distinct group who, like Jaina ascetics, receive food and shelter from the local population of householders.

So, I agree with McGovern that Āyāraṃga I predominantly uses māhaṇa to refer to the Jina or Jaina ascetics. But māhaṇa is not a primary or consistent name for the Jina or Jaina ascetics, who are called muṇi and bhikkhu throughout all lectures of Āyāraṃga I. When the Jina or Jaina ascetics are called māhaṇa, these references are confined to the last quarter of Āyāraṃga I and are dropped in as qualifiers without any elaboration or definition. The distribution of terms is also telling. In books 1–6, māhaṇa is only used once for any Jaina ascetic. By contrast, in books 7 and 8, māhaṇa is used ten times for the Jina or Jaina ascetics. This distributional pattern would appear irrelevant were it not for the fact that we see a near-identical pattern for samaṇa (skt. śramaṇa). In books 1–6, there are zero references to the Jina or Jaina ascetics as samaṇa, whereas in books 7 and 8, the Jina and Jaina ascetics are regularly called samaṇa. It is only in the final two books of Āyāraṃga I that the authors start to call Jaina ascetics both māhaṇa and samaṇa. In short, Āyāraṃga I does not use māhaṇa frequently, clearly, or consistently enough to warrant the claim that māhaṇa is a name for a celibate Jaina ascetic synonymous with muṇi, bhikkhu, niggantha, or samaṇa.

Book 1 of the Sūyagaḍaṃga is later than book 1 of the Āyāraṃga. Some of its uses of māhaṇa align with the Āyāraṃga I.Footnote ¹⁹ In lecture 2, Jaina ascetics are called māhaṇa six times in addition to other names such as bhikkhu, tavassi, and muṇi.Footnote ²⁰ These many-named ascetics, we are told, annihilate karma through asceticism, are not proud of their lineage (goya), and are not given over to passions or deceit. Beyond lecture 2, Jaina ascetics are never called māhaṇa, and in only two references is the Jina called māhaṇa.Footnote ²¹ In one of these cases, the ‘wise māhaṇa’ (Māhāvira) declares that māhaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, and caṇḍalas hold onto possessions and perform sin.Footnote ²² The māhaṇa Jina differentiates himself from non-Jaina māhaṇas.

In all other 15 lectures, Sūyagaḍaṃga I presents māhaṇas as a group inferior to Jaina ascetics. Six references cite māhaṇas alongside samaṇas as those who reject the Jina’s teachings on the self and the universe, or else, who lead Jaina monks astray.Footnote ²³ One additional reference enjoins a Jaina ascetic not to be arrogant about his brahman lineage (gotta) after renunciation.Footnote ²⁴ A Jaina ascetic might be born into a māhaṇa lineage, but in taking the Jaina vows of renunciation, he abandons all social and familial ties, including those of his brahman lineage. For our purposes, the most important reference is found in Chapter 16, the conclusion to Sūyagaḍaṃga I. Chapter 16 gives the earliest extant definition of brahmanhood in Jaina literature. There, the Jina defines four types of men who are ‘restrained’ and have ‘abandoned the body’: māhaṇa, saṃaṇa, bhikkhu, and niggantha.Footnote ²⁵ The categories are listed in ascending order, beginning with māhaṇa.

Māhaṇas are not attributed qualities that are later ascribed to samaṇas, bhikkhus, or nigganthas in subsequent verses. The māhaṇa has not renounced sexual intercourse, violence, and possession of property (which would make him a samaṇa).Footnote ²⁷ He does not practise Jaina conduct nor eat alms moderately (which would make him a bhikkhu).Footnote ²⁸ And he does not know the truth of the universe nor pursue liberation (which would make him a niggantha).Footnote ²⁹ The Jina’s definition casts māhaṇas as the most inferior people among those who follow disciplinary regulations for renouncing the body (vosaṭhakāe).Footnote ³⁰ It suggests that māhaṇas are not even ascetics, in the eyes of the writers, because they do not follow fundamental ascetic vows that prohibit sexual relations and material possessions.

In sum, although one chapter of the Sūyagaḍaṃga I collapses the distinction between māhaṇa, bhikkhu, muṇi, and samaṇa, all other chapters tend to differentiate māhaṇas from various groups of ascetics. These diverse uses of māhaṇa and the inclusion of a definition betray more contestation among authors of Sūyagaḍaṃga I than among the authors of Āyāraṃga I regarding the identification of brahmanhood and the relationship between brahmans and Jaina ascetics.

In Āyāraṃga II and Sūyagaḍaṃga II, references to brahmans increase. Āyāraṃga II refers to māhaṇa 33 times. Two-thirds of these citations are found in the same context. They explain how a Jaina monk or nun (bhikkhu/bhikkhuṇī) should acquire food or lodging in the same locale where samaṇas, māhaṇas, guests, and the poor are receiving the same alms.Footnote ³¹ There is no reason to believe that these māhaṇas are Jaina ascetics. Earlier and contemporaneous Vedic literature presents brahmans as worthy recipients of food and lodging regardless of whether they had renounced or not, though the practice was more connected to Vedic householders by the time codes on domestic ritual (gṛhyasūtra) were composed.Footnote ³² Aśoka’s inscriptions also refer to brāhmaṇas and śramaṇas as distinct, yet analogous groups who can receive alms because they are both religious professionals constituted by a system of training and a disciplinary regime.Footnote ³³ Āyāraṃga II aligns with this external representation of brahmans as recipients of alms. There, māhaṇas, samaṇas, guests, and beggars are listed together because they are different groups united by one characteristic: they all receive lodging and food from the general population. Nothing is said about state patronage. Āyāraṃga II details how a Jaina ascetic should obtain food and shelter from the same households in the same regions where other groups are recipients of the same. Two additional citations clarify that māhaṇas are not Jaina ascetics. Āyāraṃga II differentiates māhaṇas from Jaina ascetics by saying that samaṇas or (vā) māhaṇas possess an umbrella, pot, stick, staff, robe, hide, leather boots, etc. while travelling from village to village.Footnote ³⁴ Māhaṇas hold onto possessions prohibited for Jaina ascetics.

The only other way in which Āyāraṃga II presents brahmanhood is as a lineage into which one is born. These references are confined to one lecture that narrates the biography of Mahāvīra. Lecture 15 says that Mahāvīra was due to be born in ‘southern māhaṇa region of Kuṇḍapura’ to Usabhadatta, ‘a māhaṇa from the Koḍāla lineage’, and his wife, Devānandā, ‘a māhaṇa from the jālandharāyaṇa lineage’.Footnote ³⁵ No further description is given. All we are told is that Mahavīra’s parents hail from brahman lineages and that this lineage is a problem for the gods. The gods transfer the embryo of Mahāvīra into the womb of two kṣatriya parents who live in the northern kṣatriya regions of the same city. The gods make the transfer because a brahman-birth goes against the established custom of Jinas being born to kṣatriya parents in their final lifetime.Footnote ³⁶ This storyline dissociates the Jina from brahmanhood entirely. Perhaps it explains why Mahāvīra is never called a māhaṇa anywhere in Āyāraṃga II. Apparently the authors of this biography did not consider their story to be incongruous with Āyāraṃga I, which does call the Jina ‘wise māhaṇa’, albeit without any reference Mahāvīra’s biography.

Out of the 33 references in Āyāraṃga II, only one names a Jaina mendicant. In Chapter 16, the author describes a Jaina monk who has abandoned familial ties and lives without desire. The monk is variously called a bhikkhu, muṇi, and susamaṇa. At the end of the chapter, he is likened to a snake: ‘As a snake casts off its old skin, so is the māhaṇa freed from the bed of pain’.Footnote ³⁷ This fleeting reference is incongruous with the rest of Āyāraṃga II, which never refers to a Jaina ascetic as māhaṇa. Book 2 is otherwise consistent in portraying māhaṇas as a group who live off alms in the same locale as Jaina ascetics, but who are not, except in one verse, Jaina ascetics.

Sūyagaḍaṃga II follows the Āyāraṃga II in referring to samaṇas and māhaṇas as those who receive alms from the same households as Jaina ascetics.Footnote ³⁸ Sūyagaḍaṃga II is, however, more explicit than Āyāraṃga II in its ‘othering’ of brahmans. In ten cases, we are told that māhaṇas and samaṇas teach non-Jaina ontologies of the soul, kill living beings, own possessions, or blame people unnecessarily.Footnote ³⁹ In one instance, an opponent of the Jina claims the following:

This position is rejected by a Jaina interlocutor who cautions Jaina householders from feeding māhaṇas:

Here we are told that māhaṇas are graduates (siṇāyaga) who follow the Veda and stay at home (kulālaya).Footnote ⁴² The dialogue makes explicit what seems to be implicit throughout Sūyagaḍaṃga II. Namely, that brahmans are Vedic non-celibate priests who are gifted alms from householders. Indeed, the opponent echoes a similar injunction found in the Manusmṛti,Footnote ⁴³ which could suggest that Sūyagaḍaṃga II.6 was composed after the second century ce. In the following verse, the Jaina interlocutor argues that humans are born into distinct identities known as brahmans, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, and śūdras—a viewpoint that aligns with brahmanical gṛhyasūtras and dharmasūtras, which consolidate these identities into an ideology of varṇa and argue that such identities are determined by birth.Footnote ⁴⁴

While there are ten instances that describe māhaṇas negatively, there are only four instances that describe māhaṇas positively in Sūyagaḍaṃga II. All such positive references are located in lectures 2 and 6. These lectures acknowledge that māhaṇas are an internally varied group. Some māhaṇas and samaṇas abstain from violence and possess correct insight, whereas other māhaṇas and samaṇas harm living beings and teach in an incorrect manner.Footnote ⁴⁵

Only once in Sūyagaḍaṃga II is a Jaina mendicant explicitly called māhaṇa. Sūyagaḍaṃga II begins by repudiating māhaṇas and samaṇas for leading kings and householders astray with wrong doctrines.Footnote ⁴⁶ Māhaṇas are equated with householders because they own possessions and inflict violence.Footnote ⁴⁷ Yet this lecture ends by co-opting māhaṇa as one of 13 descriptors for Jaina ascetics.Footnote ⁴⁸ Despite this, henceforth Sūyagaḍaṃga II never refers to Jaina ascetics as māhaṇa.

If the foregoing evidence is difficult to follow, that is because it is difficult to follow. Each book and each lecture of Āyāraṃga and Sūyagaḍaṃga has something different to say about brahmans. Āyāraṃga I describes the Jina and Jaina ascetics as māhaṇa in the final two lectures (without any definition for māhaṇa), whereas an earlier lecture presents brahmans as the religious other to Jaina monks. Sūyagaḍaṃga I differentiates māhaṇas from Jaina ascetics more often than it equates Jaina ascetics or the Jina as māhaṇa. We can detect two broad shifts from older books to younger books. Book 1 calls the Jina a māhaṇa, albeit infrequently, whereas book 2 never describe the Jina as such. In addition, there is more discussion of brahman identity in later books where the distinction between Jaina ascetics and other groups who receive alms from the general locale comes to the forefront.

The Uttarajjhayaṇa discusses brahman identity with greater specificity and depth than older suttas. It consistently equates māhaṇas with Vedic householders who have not (yet) renounced the home. It contrasts these householders with Jaina ascetics, here called samaṇas, who have renounced permanent residency. In Chapter 12, an outcaste (sovāga) Jaina who practises the lifestyle of a chaste samaṇa Footnote ⁴⁹ is denied alms from Vedic priests during a sacrifice. These priests are called māhaṇa. They have not taken a vow of celibacy (abambhacāriṇo).Footnote ⁵⁰ They are proud of their birth’Footnote ⁵¹ and argue that food prepared during the sacrifice should be offered to māhaṇas rather than samaṇas.Footnote ⁵² Outside the question of who should receive alms from the sacrifice, the story questions the validity of different religious lifestyles. Should one be a householder who performs Vedic sacrifice? Or, should one be a celibate ascetic who refrains from all action? Chapter 12 concludes that the lifestyle of the Jaina ascetic is superior to that of the māhaṇa householder. It ends with a reinterpretation of Vedic sacrifice as a metonym for Jaina asceticism. No such reinterpretation occurs for brahman identity. Māhaṇas are a foil for distinguishing the religious commitments and lifestyle of Jaina ascetics.

Māhaṇas continue to be a foil for Jaina ascetics two chapters later, where an unnamed Vedic priest, the māhaṇa, tries to convince his sons to adopt the lifestyle of a Vedic householder before taking up vows of renunciation. At stake is whether the lifestyle of a householder is necessary for escaping rebirth. The māhaṇa father argues that renunciation should not be undertaken without having first fulfilled the duties of a Vedic householder.

The priest voices brahmanical ideologies from the Manusmṛti, the first text to enjoin studentship, householdership, retirement, and renunciation as successive, temporary stages of life (āśrama) that members of the upper three castes, especially brahmans, must pass through.Footnote ⁵⁴ In the Uttarajjhayaṇa, the sons disagree with this logic. They contend that the lifestyle of a householder will not release the soul from the cycle of rebirth.Footnote ⁵⁵ The lifestyle of an ascetic will. In their eyes, anyone can take up vows of celibacy and homelessness at any point in their life.Footnote ⁵⁶ The māhaṇa father, persuaded by this logic, permits his sons to be initiated as Jaina mendicants before doing the same himself. The māhaṇa priest, equated with brahmanical ideologies of householdership, is used as a point of contrast for justifying the lifestyle and ideologies of a Jaina ascetic, the samaṇa.

Chapter 25 of the Uttarajjhayaṇa is the only chapter that interprets brahmanhood as an identifier for the ideal Jaina: a celibate Jaina ascetic. In Chapter 25, a Jaina ascetic called Jayaghoṣa meets a Vedic priest called Vijayaghoṣa. Both characters descend from brahman lineages.Footnote ⁵⁷ But when the ascetic Jayaghoṣa begs for alms from the Vedic priest, he is turned away because he is not versed in the Veda. Jayaghoṣa proceeds to reinterpret brahmanhood in 17 verses. He opens with the claim,

This is the earliest extant citation of bambhaṇa in the Jaina suttas. Jayaghoṣa acknowledges the existence of the term bambhaṇa, but explains that Jainas call the brahman māhaṇa. Unlike the brahman who is worshipped like a fire, who knows the sacrifice and who immerses themselves in the penance of Vedic study,Footnote ⁵⁹ a māhaṇa is a brahman who, Jayaghoṣa explains, has no desires, no home, no possessions, and no connection with householders. A māhaṇa does not harm living beings (na hiṃsaï) and he renounces all sacrificial action. Jayaghosa also claims that ‘one is a brahman by chastity’ (bambhacereṇa bambhaṇo).Footnote ⁶⁰ This is the first time that any Jaina sutta explicitly equates brahmanhood with the ascetic vow of celibacy. The author switches from māhaṇa back to baṃbhaṇa in order to embed the Jaina ascetic vow of chastity (bambhacera) into the identity of brahmans who, as Jayaghoṣa suggests, are more commonly known in Prakrit as baṃbhaṇa outside Jaina discourse. By reinterpreting brahman identity through the lens of Jaina asceticism, Chapter 25 severs brahmanhood from non-celibate Vedic ritualists and co-opts it as a signifier for celibate Jaina ascetics.

From the above references, we can see that the Uttarajjhayaṇa is consistent in defining brahmans as Vedic householders whose religious practices and lifestyle are antithetical to that of Jaina ascetics, here unequivocally called samaṇa. Even when the Uttarajjhayaṇa co-opts brahmanhood as an identity for the celibate Jaina ascetic, this reinterpretation is only made possible by rejecting Vedic ideas of brahmanhood as a mark of householder priests. I suspect the Uttarajjhayaṇa is responding to brahmanical ideologies of brahmanhood and householdership that were consolidated by Manusmrti.Footnote ⁶¹ This is evident from the Uttarajjhayaṇa’s terminology. The Uttarajjhayaṇa is the first Jaina sutta to use the term diya (skt. dvija) to refer to a brahman.Footnote ⁶² Dvija is an infrequent and unelaborated identity in the dharmasūtras.Footnote ⁶³ But in Manusmṛti, dvija becomes a common name for brahmans specifically and the upper three castes more broadly. This being the case, the Uttarajjhayaṇa must have been composed after the dharmasūtras, if not also Manusmṛti. The reason why I think the Uttarajjhayaṇa must have been composed after Manusmṛti is that in Chapter 14, the brahman priest refers to Vedic study, householdership, retirement, and renunciation as four successive, temporary lifestyles that lead to soteriological success.Footnote ⁶⁴ These life stages are called āśramas in brahmanical texts. Since the āśramas were first codified into four temporary, successive stages of life by the Manusmṛti sometime in the second century ce,Footnote ⁶⁵ the Uttarajjhayaṇa could not have been composed before it.

In all suttas, there is dialogue and contestation regarding the identity of brahmans. There is no single definition of brahmanhood that runs consistently throughout any one lecture, book, or sutta. Some passages are willing to call Jaina ascetics māhāna, while most others are not. These different, yet coexisting definitions, betray debates that Jaina authors were having over the identification of brahmanhood. What differs between each book and each sutta is the degree of debate. There is less contestation and less discussion about brahmanhood in Āyāraṃga I than there is in Āyāraṃga II, Sūyagaḍaṃga I and II, and Uttarajjhayaṇa. The Uttarajjhayaṇa provides the longest and most specific debates about brahmanhood among the oldest suttas.

Nevertheless, the stakes remain the same across these suttas. At stake is distinguishing the identity of the Jaina ascetic, whether that is by co-opting brahmanhood as a marker for Jaina ascetics, differentiating brahmans as a group whose ideas and practices are antithetical to those of Jaina ascetics, or else by portraying brahmans as a distinct group who compete with Jaina ascetics for alms from the general population. It always comes down to delineating the correct practice of Jaina ascetics, especially when it comes to begging for alms.

Brahmanhood is never an identification for Jaina householders in the Āyāraṃga, Sūyagaḍaṃga, and Uttarajjhayaṇa. The closest we find to a discussion about brahmanhood vis-à-vis Jaina householders is one verse in Sūyagaḍaṃga II, which prohibits Jaina householders from giving alms to brahmans,Footnote ⁶⁶ and one verse in the Uttarajjhayaṇa, which defines a kṣatriya as someone who does not feed samaṇas and māhaṇas because he should take up vows of renunciation himself.Footnote ⁶⁷ In the oldest suttas, brahmanhood is primarily a site for defining the Jaina ascetic, not the Jaina householder. As additional suttas are composed and redacted throughout the first half of the first millennium—assuming that any additional suttas across Śvetāmbara and Digambara tradition can be concretely assigned to this period, which, in all likelihood they cannot, especially in the case of Śvetambara canon since there is no proof that the canon was closed at the council of Valabhī in the fifth century ceFootnote ⁶⁸—brahman identity is still rarely discussed therein. When it is, it is in relation to Jaina ascetics.Footnote ⁶⁹

Householder identity in early Jainism

There is an obvious reason why early Jaina suttas do not discuss brahmanhood in relation to Jaina householder identity. The suttas rarely write about Jaina householders in the first place. Jaina householders are people who subscribe to the Jina’s teachings without taking up the vows of celibacy, non-attachment, and homelessness that define a Jaina ascetic. For lack of a better translation, I call these individuals ‘householders’ because they live ‘at home’ (āgārin/sāgāra), though there is no single English word that captures the multiple, shifting names given to these individuals in early Jaina literature. In any case, the earliest Jaina suttas are more concerned about the lifestyle of Jaina ascetics than the lifestyle of Jaina householders. This inclination makes sense in light of the soteriology espoused in early suttas. The only way to escape rebirth is to renounce the home to take up a life of mendicancy. A Jaina who stays at home foregoes the lifestyle necessary for achieving liberation. Therefore, it is no wonder that the earliest layers of Jainas suttas, written by Jaina ascetics for Jaina ascetics, say little about householders. The lifestyle of a householder embodies that which Jaina ascetics renounce.

The opposite is the case for brahmanical literature, as Stephanie Jamison and Patrick Olivelle demonstrate.Footnote ⁷⁰ Whereas householders reside in the shadow of ascetics in early Jaina texts, the householder is front and centre in Vedic literature. Vedic sacrifice can only be carried out by a married man. Furthermore, a man must have sons to pay off one of the three theological debts. So central is the householder lifestyle in Vedic literature that it remains an undefined category, a status quo that needs no explanation, until the fourth to the third centuries bce when the rise of ascetic practices threatens the integrity of Vedic householder lifestyles. Around this time, a new term to designate the Vedic householder is introduced: gṛhastha. The dharmasūtras use gṛhastha to define the householder in relation to the ascetic. Householders, as their new name gṛhastha suggests, ‘stay at home’, whereas renunciants (parivrājaka) ‘go forth’ from the household. Both persons seek the same soteriological goal, but they achieve this goal through opposite lifestyles. The introduction of the term gṛhastha by the brahmanical dharmasūtras thus signals a shift in the brahmanical understanding of householders. The dharmasūtras use gṛhastha as a theological marker for those within the brahmanical fold who strive for the same goal as ascetics without leaving the context of a sedentary family existence. Subsequent brahmanical texts, such as Manusmṛti (second century ceFootnote ⁷¹), reinterpret the category of householdership from an optional lifestyle that sits on par with renunciation to an obligatory stage of life that is superior to renunciation.Footnote ⁷²

It took Jaina writers longer than brahmanical writers to take seriously the householder lifestyle. Andrew More argues that the oldest sutta to detail the lifestyle of Jaina householders is Sūyagaḍaṃga II, with only one lecture therein presenting householdership as a legitimate lifestyle for Jainas.Footnote ⁷³ When the suttas do write about Jaina householders, they do so from the perspective of Jaina ascetics. This is evident from the names given to Jaina householders. Jaina suttas do not call a Jaina householder gṛhastha. As Claire Maes explains, there are only five occurrences of gṛhastha in the oldest suttas. Four of these refer to a Vedic priest (māhaṇa).Footnote ⁷⁴ Instead, the oldest suttas call Jaina householders samanopāsaga, before terms such as sāvaya, gāhāvai,Footnote ⁷⁵ and other names derived from the word ‘home’ (agāra/gāra) were introduced.Footnote ⁷⁶ A samanopāsaga is an ‘attendant of a Jaina ascetic’; a ‘sāvaya’ ‘listens’ to the teachings of ascetics;Footnote ⁷⁷ a gāhāvai and related terms, which pertain to the home (agāra/gāra), signify a wealthy individual who maintains a permanent residence, in contrast to Jaina ascetics who are homeless (anagāra). Each of these names defines Jaina householders through their relationship to Jaina ascetics. Similarly, the practices of Jaina householders are conceptualized through the lens of Jaina asceticism. The five minor vows of Jaina householders (anuvrata) are domesticated versions of the five major vows of ascetics (mahāvrata). They render the Jina’s injunctions partially accessible to those who do not renounce the home.Footnote ⁷⁸

It is around the fifth century ce that Jainas compose new texts that focus on householders. Of course, Jainas continued to write about ascetics. But the lifestyle of ascetics is no longer the primary or the exclusive topic of discussion. The Paümacariya and Vasudevahiṇḍī narrate the lives of Jaina householders. Jaina writers compose new commentaries on Jaina householder practices. Other Jaina suttas such as the Bhagavatīsūtra use householder characters as interlocutors of the text. Jaina householdership becomes a key topic of discussion among many Jaina texts composed after the turn to the Common Era, especially from the fifth century ce onwards. It is in this new literature that a new story is composed—a story that, I argue, recasts brahmanhood as a site for constructing the identity of Jaina householders in relation to Vedic householders and state patronage.

Brahmans as Jaina householders

At the beginning of the Common Era, Jainas compose new narrative texts in Prakrit. The earliest of these texts include: Vimalasūri’s Paümacariya (fifth century ce), Saṅghadāsa’s Vasudevahiṇḍī (fifth–sixth centuries ce), and the Āvaśyakacūṛṇī (mid–late seventh century ce). In this literature are stories that narrate the origin of brahmans. Each retelling has something different to say. But the opening remains the same in all cases. At the beginning of our current half-cycle of time, there lived the first Jina, Jina Ṛṣabha. Ṛṣabha’s son, Bharata, is named the first universal emperor after he defeats rival kings. Bharata accumulates such a vast amount of wealth from the tributaries that he decides to donate this newfound wealth to Jaina ascetics. What happens next differs in each retelling. For now, I focus on the versions found in the Vasudevahiṇḍī and the Āvaśyakacūṛṇī.

According to the Vasudevahiṇḍī,Footnote ⁷⁹ after Bharata is consecrated universal emperor, he orders his cooks to prepare a feast for the Jaina monks and nuns (sāhavo sāunī ya) who attend the Jina’s assembly. Ṛṣabha tells his son that it is not appropriate for Jaina ascetics to accept either food and drink prepared especially for them, or else alms given by a king, because it causes suffering.Footnote ⁸⁰ At this point, the god, Śakra, interrupts to question Ṛṣabha.

The narrator takes a detour to describe the origin of the Indra festival that I will skip over. We will rejoin the tale with Śakra suggesting that Bharata feed the Jaina householders (sāvaga) instead of Jaina ascetics. The king proclaims,

Each time the householders eat in Bharata’s court, they tell the king, ‘You are conquered’. This reminds the king that he is overcome by his own attachments and aversions even though he, a universal emperor, has conquered other kingdoms.Footnote ⁸⁴

After some time has passed, some curious people (koūhaligo jaṇo), who think that seeing the king is like seeing a deity, arrive at Bharata’s court together with the Jaina householders, and give their blessings to the king. Footnote ⁸⁵ That is to say, these ‘curious folk’, who are differentiated from Jaina householders (sāvago), assume that they will receive donations from the king in exchange for praising him just as they think that gods bestow gifts on devotees who venerate them. Their arrival is conveyed by the cooks to the king.

Only Bharata has the authority (pamāṇa) to distinguish householders who follow the Jina from the general population who do not.

In addition to a new name, Bharata gifts the Jaina householders an external marker to distinguish them from other householders. He gives those who follow the five Jaina householder vows one thread of rosary beads to wear over the shoulder. To those who follow the five householder vows and the three vows of restriction, he gifts two threads to wear. And those who follow the five householder vows, the three vows of restriction, and the four disciplinary vows are given three threads to wear. In this way, the māhaṇas are externally marked.Footnote ⁸⁸ Māhaṇas also recite the Jina’s teachings, now called Veya (skt. Veda),Footnote ⁸⁹ which teaches the aforementioned vows for Jaina householders, the vows of Jaina ascetics, and the results of all these vows.

All Prakrit versions of this story take up the most common name for brahmans used by the Jaina suttas: Māhaṇa. They also cite an injunction enjoined by the suttas for Jaina ascetics: ‘mā haṇe’, ‘do not kill’.Footnote ⁹⁰ Jaina Prakrit storytellers connect the identifier ‘māhaṇa’ with the Jina’s injunction ‘mā haṇa’ to fashion a new etymology for a word that should refer to brahmans even though the phonological change from brāhmaṇa to māhaṇa cannot be explained. The referent of māhaṇa, however, changes from story to story. In the case of the Vasudevahiṇḍī, māhaṇas are Jaina householders who follow the Jina’s injunction ‘mā haṇaha jīve’, and receive donations from the king.

It should be obvious that the Vasudevahiṇḍī is rejecting the claim that brahmans are Vedic householders. To be a brahman is not to subscribe to the authority of the brahmanical Veda. Rather, to be a brahman is to be a Jaina householder. Of course, the Vasudevahiṇḍī has more to say than this. It conveys a hierarchy among gods, kings, landowners, householders, and ascetics. The hierarchical position of each group is determined by their dominion. For instance, Śakra does not have control over the land of Bharata since this is the dominion of the earth-bound king. This renders gods inferior to kings. The king, in turn, has less influence than wealthy landlords and the householders because even though the king has defeated rival rulers to expand the territory of his kingdom, such physical and spatial control amounts to nothing when compared to the mental and physical control that landlords and householders exert over sense faculties. Finally, though landowners and householders hold sway over smaller dominions than the king, they are still inferior to ascetics who have no permanent abode and no possessions.

The Vasudevahiṇḍī focuses on Bharata’s relationship to Jaina householders because it is this hierarchical relation that is institutionalized through the practice of donations (dāna). In line with Jaina theories of gift-giving, Bharata’s donation does not involve relations of agonistic exchange.Footnote ⁹¹ The king does not grant donations to establish himself as superior to those to whom he gives gifts. On the contrary, Bharata’s donation is a practice that formalizes the ethical superiority of the recipient, Jaina householders, over the donor, Bharata. The king feeds Jaina householders, asking for nothing in return except the reminder that he is conquered by sense faculties.

Unfortunately, this is not how other characters see the practice of gift-giving. The ‘curious people’ (koūhaligo jaṇo) who enter Bharata’s court ‘under the pretence of being Jaina householders’ (sāvagavavayaëseṇo) misinterpret the structure of social-religious hierarchy that is formalized through state donations. Presumably, these curious people are householders in the general sense that they have not renounced the home. But there is no indication that these householders follow the Jina. All we can infer is that these individuals are distinct from Jaina householders because they do the opposite of Jaina householders and are never called sāvaya. They equate the king with god, failing to understand the distinct dominions of gods and kings. They also misunderstand donative practices, venerating the king instead of reminding him of his inferiority. We could speculate that these curious folk are brahmanical householders because Manusmṛti enjoins his Vedic brahman readers to honour the king as a deity.Footnote ⁹² But the Vasudevahiṇḍī conveys nothing more about these householders except that they cannot receive state patronage because they misinterpret the position of the king and the practice of gift-giving. The Vasudevahiṇḍī is less concerned with defining the ‘curious individuals’ than it is with defining the Jaina householder.

The Vasudevahiṇḍī defines the Jaina householder by co-opting markers of brahmanhood from brahmanical texts. Jaina householders are now called brahmans. The sacred thread (yajñopavīta) that became an outward mark of Vedic brahman householders after the turn of the Common EraFootnote ⁹³ is reimagined by the Vasudevahiṇḍī as an external identifier of Jaina householders. Moreover, contrary to the gṛhyasūtras and dharmasūtras that present the completion of Vedic study as a requisite for Vedic brahmans,Footnote ⁹⁴ the Vasudevahiṇḍī presents the study of the Jina’s words which, not coincidentally, are called Veda, as a requisite of Jaina householders. For the Vasudevahiṇḍī, brahmans are māhaṇas: Prakrit-speaking, Jina-believing householders who are inferior to Jaina ascetics.

The Vasudevahiṇḍī is not the only Prakrit text to identify Jaina householders as māhaṇas. In the last quarter of the seventh century, a Prakrit commentary on householder rites called the Āvaśyakacūṛṇī was composed.Footnote ⁹⁵ It contains a retelling of the origin of māhaṇas that follows the basic outline of the story as told by the Vasudevahiṇḍī. The Āvaśyakacūṛṇī identifies brahmanhood with Jaina householders.Footnote ⁹⁶ The major difference between the two versions is that in the Āvaśyakacūṛṇī, non-Jaina householders eat the food prepared by Bharata’s cooks (taṃ logaṃ bhujjitum āraddhaṃ) even though Bharata’s donations are intended for Jaina householders alone. Unfortunately, the cooks cannot tell the difference between non-Jaina and Jaina householders. They ask Bharata what to do to ensure that their food is distributed to the correct recipient: Jaina householders.

Bharata tells his cooks to test the Jaina householders in Sanskrit (highlighted above in bold). Earlier in the Āvaśyakacūṛṇī’s tale, when the Jaina householders tell Bharata that he is defeated by sense faculties, they do so in Prakrit. Indeed, the entire story is narrated in Prakrit. Now, the Āvaśyakacūṛṇī is by no means the first Jaina text to include Sanskrit alongside PrakritFootnote ⁹⁹ nor is the story of Bharata the only place in the entire Āvaśyakacūṛṇī where the author switches to Sanskrit.Footnote ¹⁰⁰ Nevertheless, that the author switches to Sanskrit in a Prakrit story about brahman identity and state patronage cannot be brushed aside. It reflects what we now know about Prakrit and Sanskrit practices in the first millennium of the Common Era thanks to Andrew Ollett’s study.Footnote ¹⁰¹ Ollett argues that Prakrit is not concomitant with Jainas or popular culture just as Sanskrit is not concomitant with brahmanical brahmans or courtly culture. In the middle of the first millennium, brahmanical brahmans wrote in Prakrit. Not only that, Prakrit was frequently employed as the language of literature and politics in the court. The Āvaśyakacūṛṇī provides a literary illustration of the historical circumstance that Ollett reconstructs. It portrays Jaina householders as brahmans who speak Sanskrit and Prakrit in the court. Of course, the Āvaśyakacūṛṇī adds an ideological spin. It suggests that royal patronage and brahman identity are predicated as much on a householder’s ability to converse in both Prakrit and Sanskrit as they are by the content of religious practices conveyed therein. Jaina householders pass the court’s test not just because they are committed to the Jina’s Prakrit vows, but because they can communicate this commitment in Sanskrit. For the Āvaśyakacūṛṇī, brahmans are bilingual Jaina householders patronized by the court.

Brahmans as Vedic householders

The identification of brahmanhood with Jaina householders, first conveyed by the Vasudevahiṇḍī and the Āvaśyakacūṛṇī, is elaborated by later Jaina purāṇas such as Jinasena’s Harivaṃśapurāṇa (eighth century ce),Footnote ¹⁰² Jinasena’s Ādipurāṇa (ninth century ce),Footnote ¹⁰³ Puṣpadanta’s Mahāpurāṇu (tenth century ce),Footnote ¹⁰⁴ and Hemacandra’s Triśaṣṭisalākāpuruṣacaritapurāṇa (twelfth century ce).Footnote ¹⁰⁵

Not all Jaina storytellers agree with this view. Vimalasūri’s Paümacariya Footnote ¹⁰⁶ (fifth century ce)Footnote ¹⁰⁷ identifies brahmans as Vedic householders. Vimalasūri begins his narration in Chapter 3 of the Paümacariya. There, the frame narrator, Gautama, explains to his interlocutor, King Śreṇika, how society was first stratified. In the era of the first Jina, Ṛṣabha classified humans into three classes (vaṇṇa) according to their occupations.

Nothing more is said until Chapter 4, when King Śreṇika, says:

This framing suggests that māhaṇas, as they will soon be called, do not belong to the social stratification of class (vaṇṇa) created by Ṛṣabha. For Vimalasūri, brahmanhood is not an occupational identity authorized by the Jina. Māhaṇa is a religious identity applied to those who say they act out of dharma even though they do the very opposite of the Jina’s dharma. The beginning of the tale gives the ending away to ensure that there is no ambiguity surrounding the status of māhaṇas. Whoever they are and whatever their origin, the māhaṇas are an aberration from the norms of Jaina society.

Now the story begins in the Paümacariya. Bharata intends to feed the Jaina ascetics (samaṇa) until his father explains that Jaina ascetics cannot accept his alms. Bharata decides to gift the laypeople (sāvaya) who follow householder practices (gihidhamma/sāyāracaritadharin).Footnote ¹¹⁰ He invites them to his court. But in the kingdom, there are erroneous people (micchattāī narā) who also rush to Bharata in the hope of obtaining alms.Footnote ¹¹¹ Both groups approach the path leading to Bharata’s palace. The Jaina householders notice that the path is covered with vegetation. If they traverse the path, they will trample over the plants and insects that cover it, thereby transgressing the Jina’s injunction to not harm living beings. So, they stay back.Footnote ¹¹² Bharata, noticing that these householders hold back, bestows on them a thread of rosary beads before inviting them into his kingdom to receive gifts of food and drink (annapāṇadāṇa).Footnote ¹¹³

Bharata does not rename these Jaina householders, māhaṇa. Instead, things take a turn for the worse. Jaina householders become proud because they are receiving gifts from the king.Footnote ¹¹⁴ A courtier approaches Bharata to predict the future of Jaina householders.

Hearing this prediction, Bharata is enraged. He orders the slaughter of Jaina householders before they can wreak havoc.Footnote ¹¹⁷ The Jaina householders take refuge with Ṛṣabha, who cries out to Bharata,

The narrator concludes the story with a quick peek into the future of the māhaṇas: ‘As for those who, at first, take up renunciation, they died and were reborn as members of a religious intuition of ascetics that wears tree-bark.’Footnote ¹¹⁹ Then, their students and their students’ students deluded other people.Footnote ¹²⁰

Among the tales we have surveyed so far, Vimalasūri’s Paümacariya is the first to identify māhaṇas as householders who follow the brahmanical Veda. This identification is more complicated than it initially seems. Vedic brahmans have no relation to the ‘erroneous folk’ who are first denied patronage from the king. Rather, Vedic brahmans are presented as the decedents of upstanding Jaina householders who think themselves superior to everyone else, including Jaina ascetics, because they are the sole recipient of royal patronage. Vimalasūri thus casts brahmanhood as primarily a socio-political identity. Only secondarily is brahmanhood presented as a religious identity. This is evident from the new plotline used to explain the origin of the name, māhaṇa. Māhaṇa no longer refers to the religious injunction that Jaina householders follow. Nor is it a name given by Bharata to distinguish Jaina householders from the erroneous householders. In Vimalasūri’s version, māhaṇa refers to the injunction (‘mā haṇasu’) that the Jina issues to protect the householders who have been gifted by the court. That is to say, brahmanhood is the identification given to a subsect of Jaina householders who not only establish donative relationships with ruling families but who are also protected by those families, even when their own moral and ideological inclinations deviate from those of the families who support them. It is through this newly founded institutional position that brahmans, in later generations, adopt new lifestyles, create a new religious scripture (the Veda), and reinterpret discourses about dharma. These later developments are left unexplored in this subtale because clearly, for Vimalasūri, it was more important to use this narrative to explain how brahmans came to occupy a particular socio-political position.

Vimalasūri’s story was a problem for another Jaina writer, Raviṣeṇa. Raviṣeṇa agrees that brahmans are Vedic householders and that brahmanhood was created as a socio-political identity primarily. But he does not think that Vedic brahmans are descendants of Jaina householders. So, in the seventh century, Raviṣeṇa retells Vimalasūri’s tale in order to dissociate Vedic brahmans from Jaina householders. He is also the first to rewrite any Prakrit tale into Sanskrit in his only extant text, Padmacarita. Footnote ¹²¹

Raviṣeṇa’s version of the origin of brahmans follows the general structure of Vimalasūri’s retelling. Raviṣeṇa introduces kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, and śudras as occupational identities created by Ṛṣabha.Footnote ¹²² And when the story of the origin of brahmans begins, the opening scene is the same as in all earlier retellings. Bharata invites to his court those who follow householder vows (etān sāgāravratam āśritān)Footnote ¹²³ and he announces that these householders deserve patronage because they are devoted to the Jina’s teachings and possess correct insight.Footnote ¹²⁴

But, when word gets out that Bharata is preparing to give donations, each member of society reacts differently.

Raviṣeṇa does not describe the journey any further. He skips to the outcome. Bharata distinguishes householders who have correct insight from those who do not. He gifts the former a golden thread and invites them into his palace. Then, something unique happens in Raviṣeṇa’s retelling. For the first time in any retelling, we see what happens to the non-Jaina householders who did not win state patronage.

Following this new plot twist, Raviṣeṇa joins his tale back up with Vimalasūri’s version. A courtier tells Bharata that after the final Jina has died, these ignorant householders will become ‘arrogant non-Jaina institutions’ (pākhaṇḍinaḥ mahoddhatāḥ).Footnote ¹²⁷ The courtier’s prediction in the Padmacarita is almost identical with the prediction told by the Paümacariya, except that it now concerns the ignorant householders rather than the Jaina householders. The ignorant householders will compose a text called the Veda that propagates violence.Footnote ¹²⁸ Raviṣeṇa adds that these householders will be occupied with grand sacrifices and their primary goal will be to obtain gifts (pratigraha).Footnote ¹²⁹ After the courtier has spoken, Bharata prepares to kill the householders until he is stopped by Jina with a Sanskrit injunction.

Raviṣeṇa embeds the Prakrit term māhana in a Sanskrit etymology while rewriting the Prakrit tale of brahmans in Sanskrit for the first time in Jaina history. By retaining māhaṇa, which is unique to Jainas, and giving it a Sanskrit spelling (māhana) and a Sanskrit etymology, Raviṣeṇa draws on both Sanskrit and Prakrit textual practices to construct brahman identity.Footnote ¹³¹

In the final verses of the tale, Raviṣeṇa repeats Vimalasūri, explaining how māhaṇas created a new religion based on the Veda. The only change Raviṣeṇa makes is the addition of one sarcastic verse. He says: ‘In addition to Bhṛgu, Aṅgiras, Vahni, Kapila, Atri and Vida, there will be many others who, out of ignorance, become ascetics who wear tree bark.’Footnote ¹³² Why do these ascetics (tāpasa) wear clothing? Because ‘when they looked at women, these lowest of men with vile thoughts covered their erections with a loincloth to hide their infatuation’.Footnote ¹³³ Here, Raviṣeṇa is alluding to brahmanical texts that cite Bhṛgu, Aṅgiras, Vahni, Kapila, Atri, and Vida as eminent brahmans who cannot check their lust for women. For Raviṣena, it is incomprehensible that such brahmans could be ascetics when they cannot follow ascetic practices of celibacy and restraint.

Raviṣeṇa makes some significant changes to Vimalasūri’s tale. Whereas in Vimalasūri’s Paümacariya, Vedic householders originate from Jaina householders who have correct insight, in Raviṣeṇa’s Padmacarita, Vedic householders originate from householders who have false insight. The moral decline of time no longer explains the emergence of non-Jaina householders. The māhaṇas always had wrong beliefs, always did the wrong actions, always stood outside the confines of the Jaina community. For Raviṣeṇa, ignorance and immorality have no temporal bounds. They have existed since the time of the first Jina.

The representation of māhaṇas is taken to the extreme. Raviṣeṇa’s māhaṇas are cast as the antithesis of the five Jaina vows (mahāvrata) that identify a Jaina ascetic and the lesser vows that identify a Jaina householder. Māhaṇas practise excessively violent rituals (hiṃsa). They knowingly try to deceive Bharata and propagate false teachings (asatya). They extort money from wealthy patrons (asteya). They do not check their excessive lust (abrahmacarya). And they seek out material wealth (aparigraha). The māhaṇas are characterized through their implicit rejection of vows that identify one as a Jaina.

By far the most notable innovation is Raviṣeṇa’s explanation of patronage. Whereas previous retellings portray Bharata’s patronage as the exclusive domain of Jaina communities, Raviṣeṇa suggests that the king bestows gifts on Vedic householders out of sympathy for their exclusion. Bharata’s pluralistic support galvanizes these ignorant householders to seek out more donations from other wealthy patrons. What starts out as a one-off endowment escalates into enduring relations of patronage across the land. Little else is said about the exact nature of this patronage though it is clear that Raviṣeṇa criticizes Vedic brahmans. Living off state donations is not sanctioned by the Jina in the way that the occupations of kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, and śudras are. Taken together, the rise of Vedic brahmans is attributed, in part, to a compassionate king who donates to householders outside his own religion, and in part, to the savvy of Vedic householders who capitalized on this institutional support and used it as a basis for propagating new ideologies.

Reading Jaina stories in their wider context

The earliest extant Jaina tales about the origin of brahmans differ in their understanding of brahmanhood. For the Vasudevahiṇḍī and the Āvaśyakacūṛṇī, brahmans are Jaina householders who are gifted food and wealth by the king because they uphold the Jina’s teachings. Even though these retellings say nothing about Vedic householders, their authors are clearly drawing on Vedic texts. The Vasudevahiṇḍī and the Āvaśyakacūṛṇī map markers of brahman identity, enjoined by brahmanical dharmaśāstras, onto Jaina householders. At the other end of the spectrum, the Paümacariya and Padmacarita identify brahmans as Vedic householders who reject the Jina’s teachings and author the Veda. That said, the Paümacariya and Padmacarita disagree about the relationship between Vedic and Jaina householders. The Paümacariya describes Vedic householders as descendants of Jaina householders, whereas the Padmacarita presents Jaina and Vedic householders as mutually exclusive groups from the get-go. Taken together, the four earliest extant tales about the origin of brahmans show that Jaina constructions of brahmanhood cannot be reduced to a single perspective.

More important than this observation about diversity are the similarities that tie these retellings together. The stories change the stakes of the debate. In earlier Jaina suttas, brahmanhood is primarily a site for defining the Jaina ascetic. But in Prakrit Jaina stories about the origin of brahmans, brahmanhood is reimagined as a site for distinguishing one type of householder—Jaina householders—from another type of householder—Vedic householders. Jaina ascetic identity is no longer at stake. Rather, Jaina householder identity is at stake. Connected to this point is the representation of donations. In the later layers of the oldest suttas—Āyāraṃga II, Sūyagaḍaṃga II, and Uttarajjhayaṇa—brahmans are commonly described as a group who receives alms from the general population of householders or else from the Vedic sacrifice. (Patronage from the king is never the context for these passages unless the sutta is prohibiting Jaina ascetics from interacting with the kingFootnote ¹³⁴ or vice versa, prohibiting the king from feeding both ascetics and māhaṇas.Footnote ¹³⁵) This portrayal of donations and their intended recipient also changes in Prakrit Jaina stories about the origin of brahmans. Prakrit Jaina stories recast brahmanhood as a site for examining donations given by ruling families to Jaina householders.

Why do Jaina storytellers from the fifth to seventh centuries ce change the stakes of the debate to talk about inter-religious competition among Jaina householders and Vedic householders for state patronage? To answer this question, we need to look beyond Jaina texts towards the history of brahmanical thought and patronage.Footnote ¹³⁶

According to the early Vedic corpus, a brahman is a brahman if he has completed the vow of brahmacārya—the process (cārya) of learning and embodying Vedic utterances (brahman) during a period of celibate instruction.Footnote ¹³⁷ A brahman is a man who has completed his Vedic instruction. Brahmanhood was not initially presented as an identity predicated on marriage or birthright.Footnote ¹³⁸ From the third to the second centuries bce onwards, brahmans widen and deepen their representations of themselves in new texts on domestic codes on Vedic ritual (gṛhyasūtras), and codes on social behaviours (dharmasūtras). The dharmasūtras aggregate brahmanhood to householder identity even while suggesting that brahmans could be ascetics.Footnote ¹³⁹ Brahmans also broadened their definitions of brahmanhood to include a professional occupation of a ritualist, an adviser for civil law and policy in the king’s court, the ideal householder, and a transcendent identity based on birth and ritual purity.Footnote ¹⁴⁰ Brahmans also reimagined their understanding of alms. Brahmans could already receive alms in the form of food from the Vedic sacrifice. But by the time the Arthaśāstra and Manusmṛti were composed, brahmans expanded their discussions of donations from the ritual sphere to the courtly sphere. They enjoined ruling families to gift brahmans food and gold, and they prohibited those same rulers from feeding ascetics.Footnote ¹⁴¹ By enjoining the state to feed brahmans rather than ascetics, brahmans signalled their status as ritual professionals comparable, if not superior, to mendicants.

These ideological innovations, among others,Footnote ¹⁴² allowed Vedic brahmans to reinvent themselves after a period in which they received little state patronage.Footnote ¹⁴³ Under the Mauryans, Vedic priests were respected but not endowed to the same extent as Buddhists and Jainas. Aśoka’s rock edicts record the regular state endowments of shelters and food to ascetic traditions. Although he enjoins the feeding of brahmans, it is clear from his inscriptions that Vedic priests neither received regular state endowments in the way that Buddhists did nor did they occupy administrative positions in Mauryan courts.Footnote ¹⁴⁴

After the fall of Mauryan empire, there is a gradual shift in the direction of state patronage. Brahmans, having received very little patronage compared to Buddhists and Jainas under the Mauryans, were increasingly patronized by post-Mauryan dynasties. This patronage did not come in the form of ascetic shelters or religious monuments as it often did when directed to Buddhists and Jainas. Instead, as Timothy Lubin explains, state-approved gifts to brahmans (brahmadeya) came in the form of land that would be used to establish an enclave for feeding brahmans and money for supporting the study of Vedic scriptures and the performance of Vedic ritual.Footnote ¹⁴⁵ Some of the earliest records of state patronage to brahmans come from the Sātavāhaṇas who fed thousands of brahmans and gifted them gold and villages in central India in the first century ce.Footnote ¹⁴⁶ The Kuṣāṇas in the north also lent support to brahmans. In 128–129 ce, the Kuṣāṇa ruler, Huviṣka, endowed the construction of a hall to feed a hundred brahmans on a daily basis.Footnote ¹⁴⁷ Additional inscriptions from the same century record brahmans occupying ministerial and administrative offices in the court.Footnote ¹⁴⁸ Still, even though brahmans received some support, they did not become the primary recipient of state patronage before the fourth century ce. The Sātavāhaṇas extended regular financial support to Buddhist communities.Footnote ¹⁴⁹ And the Kuṣāṇas rarely endowed brahmans compared to other traditions.Footnote ¹⁵⁰ It was when the Guptans and Vākāṭakas came to power around the fourth century ce that brahmans became a primary recipient of state patronage. From the fourth to the seventh centuries ce, ruling families gave significantly more land grants and tax-free donations to brahmans than they did to Buddhists and Jainas.Footnote ¹⁵¹ In this way, brahmans ‘won’.Footnote ¹⁵² The way that brahmans represented themselves in their texts from the second century bce became reflected in the economic and political reality of South Asia in the fourth–seventh centuries ce. And vice versa, state endowments lent institutional support for the ideologies that brahmans propagated.Footnote ¹⁵³

Jainas in this period rarely received state patronage. From the third century bce to the third century ce, there is an abundance of inscriptions that evidence donations given by Jaina householders to ascetics.Footnote ¹⁵⁴ By contrast, there is scant evidence of donations given by the state to any Jaina. Only two inscriptions from this era record state patronage to Jainas. The Hāthīgumphā inscription of Khāravela and an inscription from Pabhosa record the donation of residential caves to Jaina monks. Footnote ¹⁵⁵ Aside from these two inscriptions, which themselves contain interpretive difficulties,Footnote ¹⁵⁶ there is no evidence of state donations to Jainas ascetics.Footnote ¹⁵⁷ The near-total absence of state donations to Jaina ascetics is consistent with Jaina ideologies, which prohibit ascetics from interacting with the king and his court.Footnote ¹⁵⁸ But for Jaina householders, there is no such prohibition.

Neither Jaina ascetics nor Jaina householders fare better under the reign of the Guptas during the fourth to sixth centuries ce. Apart from the installation of three Jina images,Footnote ¹⁵⁹ there are no extant inscriptions that record Guptan state donations to Jainas. In fact, Jaina communities are largely absent from Guptan material records altogether.Footnote ¹⁶⁰ Similarly, the Vākāṭakas donated numerous land grants to brahmans, yet none to Jainas. The situation changes only for Jaina ascetics in South India. As Julie Hanlon explains, ruling families in Tamil Nadu donated to Jaina ascetics from as early as the second century bce onwards, Footnote ¹⁶¹ though donations from ruling families (but not the king himself) for the construction of monastic residences, the installation of Jaina images, and the funding of Jaina religious services increase dramatically from the fifth to the ninth centuries ce.Footnote ¹⁶² Beyond Tamil Nadu, the number of inscriptions from South India that record state donations to Jaina ascetics, the Jina himself, or to an existing Jaina temple increases from the fifth century ce onwards.Footnote ¹⁶³However, there is no record of state patronage to Jaina householders in South India in the first millennium unless we include patronage of Jaina festivals or one inscription from the Kadambas in Karnataka that records the installation of a Jaina temple ‘for the sake of feeding the entire community’ (sarvasaṃghabhojanāya).Footnote ¹⁶⁴ In fact, South Indian inscriptions say nothing at all about Jainas of a mercantile or bourgeois background until the tenth century.Footnote ¹⁶⁵

As far as I can tell from extant inscriptions before the seventh century ce, Jaina householders were not named recipients of state patronage.Footnote ¹⁶⁶ This is one of the reasons why Paul Dundas calls Jainism in its earliest phases a ‘non-imperial religion’.Footnote ¹⁶⁷ Early Jainas did not forge sustained relations of economic or social dependence with ruling families in the way that Buddhists did before the Common Era or that Vedic brahmans did from the turn of the Common Era onwards. Unlike Vedic brahmans who began to occupy positions in royal courts and who became primary recipients of state patronage, especially from the fourth to the seventh centuries ce, Jaina householders neither occupied positions in the court nor were recipients of state patronage. There is no record of Jaina householders being gifted alms in the form of food, land grants, or wealth by ruling families in inscriptions dated before the seventh century ce.

It is in this context that the Paümacariya (fifth century ce), Saṅghadāsa’s Vasudevahiṇḍī (fifth–sixth centuries ce), the Āvaśyakacūṛṇī (mid–late seventh century ce, and Raviṣeṇa’s Padmacarita (seventh century ce) were written.Footnote ¹⁶⁸ I suggest that stories about the origin of brahmanhood in these Jaina texts reimagine brahmanhood as a site for distinguishing Jaina householder identity from Vedic householder identity because they were composed in a period when Vedic brahmans were monopolizing householder ideologies, political influence, and state patronage. The Vasudevahiṇḍī and Āvaśyakacūṛṇi aim to transform existing relations of state patronage by replacing Vedic brahman householders with Jaina brahman householders as the primary recipient of state patronage. They convey their writers’ aspirations—the institutional models of patronage that the authors hope to see in place for Jaina householders one day. By contrast, I do not think Vimalasūri and Raviṣeṇa write aspirational narratives. I think they are writing to explain why things are the way they are—how Vedic brahmans won patronage from ruling families—without expecting change in these donative relations in the near future. Regardless of these differences, the inception of Jaina stories about the origin of brahmanhood strongly suggests that their writers reimagined brahmanhood as a site for thinking about Jaina householders and state patronage in response to the contemporaneous history, discursive and material, of Vedic brahmans.