This discourse records how the brahmin student Assalāyana took on the Buddha on the question of the four classes, an attempt that Assalāyana knew was doomed from the start. Like similar contests such as the Ambaṭṭhasutta (DN 3), it is rich in historical connections.

Similar gatherings were noted at Campā (DN 4:4.1) and Opāsāda (MN 95:7.1).

While this description is similar to that of brahmin students such as Ambaṭṭha (DN 3:1.3.1), it is only here and at MN 95:11.2 that we find the additional details that they are tonsured and sixteen years of age. | “Tonsured” (vuttasira) literally means “circlehead” and it refers to the practice of shaving off all but a topknot (cf. nivṛttacūḍaka at Manusmṛti 5.67). According to Manusmṛti 2.65, the ceremony of tonsure (there called keśānta) is to be given to brahmins at sixteen, so this must be meant here. Contrast the usual brahmanical pejorative of muṇḍaka (“shaveling”, MN 81:6.8).

Assalāyana may be identified with Kauśalyaṣcāśvalāyana (“Assalāyana of Kosala”) who asked the sage Pippalāda about the nature of prāṇa (breath/life energy) in Praśna Upaniṣad 3. He was probably a grandson or further descendant (as indicated by the naḍādi formation of his name) of the Aśvala of Videha who debated Yājñavalkya (see note below).

This dialogue is modeled after the debate at Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.1 between Yājñavalkya and Aśvala. Foreign brahmins had come to Videha from Kuru and Pañcāla, the older-established and more prestigious Brahmanical lands (cf. the “western brahmins” of SN 42.6:2.1 and AN 10.176:1.5). King Janaka offered an extravagant prize of a thousand cows with gold-tipped horns for the greatest brahmin among them. But none dared step forward, so Yājñavalkya started to drive the cows home. Aśvala, the priest in charge of litany (hotṛ) for Janaka, challenged him to a debate, but was ultimately silenced.

This agrees with Praśna Upaniṣad 1.2, where Assalāyana, along with his fellow-seekers, is asked to live another year in fervor, spiritual practice, and faith (bhūya eva tapasā brahmacaryeṇa śraddhayā saṁvatsaraṁ).

This verse is also at DN 27:3.6 and MN 84:9.19.

“Greece” (yona, from “Ionia”) and “Persia” (kamboja) are loose exonyms indicating the regions dominated by Greek and Iranian culture. | The Greeks and other foreigners are mentioned in Ashokan edicts, but this is the only reference to Greece in an early Buddhist text. The Sanskrit yavana appears shortly after the Buddha in Pāṇini 4.1.49. The Indic terms are derived from the Persian yauna, first attested in an inscription of Darius I (522–486 BCE), who conquered three Indian realms: gandāra (Gandhāra), hindush (Indus valley), and thataguš (Sattagydia, around modern Bannu in Pakistan). Soldiers from these realms served under Achaemenid kings from this time. Moreover, several Greek and Achaemenid coins dating back as far as Darius I have been found in the Kabul hoard as well as the Shaikhan Dheri hoard at the site of Puṣkalāvatī, capital of Gandhāra. | “Persia” is one of the sixteen great nations (AN 3.70:28.2). It was the home of horses, lying to the west of Gandhāra (Pakistan) in modern Afghanistan. This was the easternmost extent of Iranian culture, and the passage here shows how different it was considered compared to the other nations. At this date, I think kamboja meant not just the specific location in Afghanistan, but more generally the Iranian peoples west of Gandhāra, just as yona (“Ionian”) is used for all people of Greek culture. | The perceived difference in slave culture mirrors the Greek ambassador Megasthenes who, writing over a century later, said there were no slaves in India.

The next three examples are (1) meditating on love, (2) bathing, and (3) starting a fire. All of these reflect activities characteristic of brahmins: (1) the “divine meditations” (brahmavihāra) that originated as contemplation on the qualities of divinity, (2) ritual bathing to wash away sin, and (3) worship of Agni on the fire altar.

Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 11.5 relates how Purūravas, longing to be reunited with his queen, the nymph Urvaśī, was required by the Gandharvas to make a special fire. It must be generated by wood from a tree that grew from the ashes of celestial fire provided by themselves, the upper drill-stick of aśvattha (i.e. Bodhi tree) and the lower stick of śamī. In that legend, the essence of the fire is determined by its divine origin, against which the Buddha poses a naturalistic explanation.

This seems to be the only mention of the padumaka tree in Pali. It may be the Sanskrit padmaka, for which one possible identification is Prunus cerasoides, the wild Himalayan cherry. | Here we find both sāka and sāla, so I translate sāka as “teak”, whereas at DN 3:1.15.10 I have sakhua, an alternate name for the sal tree.| For salaḷa see note on SN 52.8:1.1.

Caṇḍālas (“corpse-workers”) are frequently depicted as the lowest of untouchables as seen by Brahmins. However, the usual rendering of “outcast” is unsatisfactory, as all the groups here are defined positively by their occupation, and moreover some, such as the scavengers, would also have been untouchable. The Pali commentaries equate the caṇḍāla with the chavaka (or chapaka) of Bu Sk 69:1.12.1, a “corpse disposer” (chavachaḍḍakacaṇḍālā; see also chavakacaṇḍālo at Mil 5.4.7:2.4). They were known for their “bone-washing” ceremony (DN 1:1.13.2, AN 10.107:1.1). This agrees with Rāmāyana 1.58.10, which describes a caṇḍāla as dark-complexioned, dirty, with disheveled hair, his body smeared with graveyard ash. Mahāvaṁsa 10.91–94 tells how King Paṇḍukābhaya employed caṇḍālas for cleaning streets and toilets, bearing the dead, and watching over cemeteries, with their village adjoining the cemetery.

A similar argument is made regarding consciousness at MN 93:11.5.

The complex question of intercaste children is usually governed by the assumption that the father supplies the “seed” which the mother merely incubates. Kauṭilya, however, notes a variety of opinions on this question (Arthaśāstra 3.7.1–3). | Assalāyana’s views do not agree with the more developed doctrine found in later texts.

Since the brahmins declared their own class the highest, such a union is considered to be pratiloma (“contrary to the natural order”). Arthaśāstra 3.7.28 says such a child is a sūta; Manusmṛti 10.11 agrees, adding that their livelihood is a charioteer (10.47).

Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra 1.9.17 says that the child of a brahmin father and aristocrat mother is a brahmin. Manusmṛti 10.6 admits the same, though due to the “defect” of the mother they are considered “like” a brahmin.

“Shared a womb” is sodariya, the only occurrence of this term in early Pali. | This thought experiment anticipates the modern method of studying twins to eliminate variables in development.

Here tape (“fervent austerity”) stands for ethical conduct, hence I translate “abstemious behavior”. Some manuscripts omit it, but I think it is required by the sense.

The “seven brahmin seers” (Sanskrit saptarṣi, (eg. Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 13.8.1.9, Atharva Veda 4.11.9c, Vājasaneyi Saṁhitā 13.26b) were renowned sages to whom the Vedic lineages (gottā) were attributed As the sutta’s conclusion will show, they are introduced here to demonstrate that the fallacy of geneology has been there since the beginning. | A similar practice of living in wilderness is described at MN 25:9.5, SN 11.9, DN 23:21.3, DN 3:2.3.3, and DN 27:22.9. Chāndogya Upaniṣad 5.10.1–5 compares the forest contemplatives destined for the Brahmā realm with the ritualists who are reborn on the moon before returning to earth.

Mahābhārata 12.181.5 says that brahmins are the white class, aristocrats red, peasants yellow, and menials black.

Asita Devala is probably meant to be the legendary seer known as Asita or Devala son of Kāśyapa who composed Rig Veda 9.5–24, although they seem to share little but the name. He is an example of the “dark hermit” archetype, irrupting within Brahmanical traditions to subvert from within, relying on his mysterious power of otherness. See also Asita Kaṇhasiri (or Kāladevala, Snp 3.11:1.1), Kaṇha (DN 3:1.23.6), Kaṇhadīpāyana (Cp 31:1.2), and Sāma (Cp 33:1.1). Such encounters show how the contention between Vedic ritualism and native contemplatives challenged and elevated both traditions. In this way they invert the stereotype of Brahmanical colorism, paving the way for the ascension of the dark god Krishna.

His behavior is disrespectful, like that of Vepacitti, and unlike that of Sakka at SN 11.9. But the context is different, for there the seers were of good character and deserving of respect, whereas here they embrace wrong views.

See Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 6.6.3.10.

Compare SN 11.22:1.7.

This passage accurately conveys that caste was not just criticized by Buddhism, it was actively contested within Brahmanical circles. As just one of many examples, Yudhiṣṭhira said, “It is not by reason of family or study or learning that one is of high caste, but because of behavior alone” (Mahābhārata 3.297.61).

The gandhabba (normally “centaur”, here “virile spirit”) is, per the commentary, the being to be reborn. He represents the element of male sexuality in procreation. He is “father, begetter, kinsman”, by whose knowledge one becomes the “father’s father” (Arthavaveda 2.1.2–3). He is said to guard (Rig Veda 9.83.4) or steal (Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 3.2.4) or actually be (Rig Veda 9.86.36) the vitalizing liquid Soma, who is extracted on an altar as semen is extracted in the vagina (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 6.4.3). He thus lies within the waters (Rig Veda 9.86.36, 10.10.4) or within the womb (Rig Veda 10.177.2). It seems that, since semen is “a man’s essence” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 6.4.1, Aitareya Upaniṣad 2.1), the seed of past lovers—curses against whom are helpfully provided (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 6.4.9–12)—remains in the womb. This is why the gandhabba possesses women (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.7.1, 3.3.1) and, unless placated with proper worship, might become a “hairy one” who devours embryos (Artharva Veda 8.6.23, see 8.6.18–19). To ward against such risks, in the rites of marriage and procreation, the gandharva king Viśvāvasa, a playboy and deadbeat father, is asked to “rise up” out of the woman (Rig Veda 10.85.21–22, Atharva Veda 14.2.33–6, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 6.4.19) and find his pleasures with another, so that the husband may father the child. This contrasts with the Pali passage, where the gandhabba “is ready” for conception; in other words, a being is driven by their karma to be born there.

Chāndogya Upaniṣad 5.10.3–7 details the “path of the fathers” after death; they follow a winding path to the moon Soma, only to return as rain, grow as plants, be eaten, and ultimately be emitted as semen, thus determining the caste of the child. It seems from this passage, however, that this doctrine, convincing as it may seem, was not sufficient to allay male anxiety over paternity. Indeed, the very baroqueness of these conceptions show the doctrinal and ritual lengths required to fix paternity.

The syntax of this passage mirrors AN 6.18:4.12 and Kd 16:6.4.1. In each case, te hi nāma introduces a passage referring to events of the past whose outcome is framed in future tense (from the past point of view).

Puṇṇo dabbigāho is a highly specific reference to a detail of the Sākamedha ritual that marks the beginning of winter. From the rice offering on the first day, a pot is set aside until the next morning, when the very last “full spoon” (pūrṇā darvi) is scraped up, with the invocation, “Full, O spoon, fly off, and fly back to us well filled!” (Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 2.5.3.16–17, Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa 5.6.20; invocation found at Atharva Veda 3.10.7c, Maitrāyaṇī Saṁhitā 1.10.2, Vājasaneyi Saṁhitā 3.49a). This ensures that present prosperity will be renewed after the barren cold season (just as life is renewed after death, or as last season’s grain is sown on the field). The implication is that present-day brahmins don’t even fulfill the rites of continuity in their own tradition, so how can they assert the continuity of caste over generations? | Yesaṁ refers back to te of the previous portion, i.e. the seven brahmin seers, whose tradition modern brahmins are supposed to continue.