This sutta is repeated verbatim at Snp 3.9:69.3.

Also at DN 13:2.2 and MN 99:13.5.

We meet Vāseṭṭha and Bhāradvāja as the students of Pokkharasāti and Tārukkha respectively in DN 13, at the end of which they went for refuge. Some time later they must have sought the monkhood, as in DN 27:1.3 they are living in the Sangha awaiting ordination.

The ideal of brahminhood was a long-standing one, and so was the conflict over what exactly made someone a brahmin. Bhāradvāja expresses the most obvious and socially widespread understanding that it is simply a matter of birth.

Vattasampanno (Sanskrit vṛttasaṁpanna) means “one of good conduct¸one who has fulfilled their duties” rather than having a technical sense of fulfilling religious observances or rites. For example, Manusmṛti 8.179 advises that one should deposit money with someone who is “of good conduct, knows the law, and speaks the truth” (vṛttasampanne dharmajñe satyavādini. See also eg. Mahābhārata 3.188.90b, 13.61.029a, Rāmāyaṇa 1.47.25c). | Compare the discussion at DN 4:21.1, where the Buddha leads Soṇadaṇḍa to agree that the essential qualities of a brahmin were ethical conduct and wisdom.

Pokkharasāti’s conversion to Buddhism is recorded in DN 3, which marks a turning point in the embracing of Buddhism by leading brahmins. The suttas of the Dīgha Nikāya that follow reverberate with the consequences of this encounter. He was one of the most influential brahmins of his time, although the Buddha elsewhere denied that he had any special knowledge (MN 99:15.5). Brahmanical texts know him as an influential teacher around the time of the Buddha; his name is spelled Pauṣkarasādi in Sanskrit. He is cited on grammar by Kātyāyana and Patañjali, and in the Taittirīya-prātiśākhya; on allowable food and theft in the Āpastamba Dharmasūtra; and on Vedic ritual in the Śāṅkhāyana-Āraṇyaka. MN 99:10.3 clarifies that he is of the Upamañña lineage.

In Pali we never meet Tārukkha and he is only mentioned in his absence. Bhāradvāja advocates his path at DN 13:5.2 but without details. There is a Tārukṣya of Aitareya Āraṇyaka 3.1.6.1 whose view was that union (with Brahmā) arose with the conjunction of speech and breath; this was discussed alongside the views of many other brahmins. In Rig Veda 8.46.32 a certain Balbūtha Tarukṣa the Dāsa makes an offering to a sage. Sāyaṇa, the Vedic commentator, says that Balbūtha Tarukṣa was a guardian of cows, evidently alluding to the Aitareya Āraṇyaka, which describes Tārukṣya as a guardian of his teacher’s cows, thus locating Tārukṣya in the lineage of Tarukṣa. Hiraṇyakeśīgṛhyasūtra 2.8.19 also mentions him as a teacher, there spelled Tarukṣa.

The Buddha as “eye” evokes the common (eg. Rig Veda 1.164.14, 5.40.8, 5.59.5, 10.10.9) Vedic image of the Sun as the “eye of all” (viśvacakṣāḥ, 7.63.1), the “eye” for “eyes to see” (10.158.4), moving as an unaging wheel through the sky (1.164.14). See DN 16:5.6.3.

Notice how the Buddha responds clearly, yet without immediately contradicting either of them. As usual, he begins by identifying common ground, pointing out things that they will all agree on.

Paṭaṅga is either “cloth-goer” (in reference to an insect’s wings) or “flyer” (from pata, “fly”). It seems to be a general term for flying insects, including moths, butterflies, grasshoppers, etc. It is often, as here, paired with kīṭa, suggesting a contrast between earthbound and airborne bugs.

Having established common ground, the Buddha does not hesitate to disagree with Bhāradvāja.

The Buddha rejects any essentialist theory of human differentiation.

Sippa here is usually translated “craft”, but this refers primarily to occupations making things by hand. In DN 2 there is a long list of sippa, only a few of which are “crafts”. “Profession” fits better.

The Buddha has been carefully leading up to this rhetorical thrust: a true brahmin is not one who performs the traditional rituals revered by the brahmins.

Read bhuñjati at MN 98:10.30 with yathābhuttañca bhuñjatha at DN 17:1.9.4, DN 26:6.7, and MN 129:35.7. Translators have rendered these with “eat”, “enjoy”, or “govern”. But compare the archaic English “use” meaning “the benefit or profit of lands”. Thus yathābhuttañca bhuñjatha means “use as has been used”, i.e. “maintain the current level of taxation”.

Bho (“worthy”) is a term of address used by brahmins when speaking to one another or to mendicants.

The Buddha categorically rejects Bhāradvāja’s genealogical understanding of a brahmin and endorses Vāseṭṭha’s understanding in terms of good conduct. Nonetheless, while a brahmin must have good conduct, the true meaning of the word lies in liberation and transcendence. In this, the Buddha’s position approaches that of Yājñavalkya, who argued that a brahmin, knowing the Self, gives up desire for sons, wealth, and heaven and wanders seeking alms (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.5.1); ultimately, only one who knows the imperishable is a brahmin (3.8.10).

For an explanation of the “cross-bar”, see MN 22:31.1 and note.

The compound maggāmagga can be read either as “what is the path and what is not the path”, or as “the variety of paths” (compare phalāphala, “all sorts of fruit”). However, this was the central topic of conversation between Vāseṭṭha and Bhāradvāja at DN 13:3.1, where they were concerned to distinguish one path as correct.

The “migrant with no shelter” (anokasārī) is defined at SN 22.3:5.1 as one free of attachments.

A brahmin is identified with Mitra, the “friendly” god of alliances (Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 4.1.4). The Brahmanical tradition endorses harmlessness except in the sacrifice (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.15.1), which can be read as either sheer hypocrisy or as a sacred and effective limitation on the scope of killing. Either way, the Buddha made no such exception.

Āsā is probably the Pali word that comes closest to “hope” in the sense of longing for a positive destiny in the future. Hope is not a virtue in Buddhism, which is focused on what is visible in the present.

The Buddha comes down on Vāseṭṭha’s side, as also at Snp 1.7:24.4. Despite this definitive statement, the Buddha goes on to indicate the limits of deeds.

The text implies that a “supreme brahmin” is one who has transcended all deeds, for they bind one to transmigration.

A liberated person is revered in Buddhism like God in theistic religions.