d his criticism by indirection, leading Sonadanda on by what the Latin poet calls the expedient of the diminishing heap.
So he said to Sonadanda: “But of these five qualifications, O Brahman, would it be possible to omit one, and yet describe such a man truthfully as a Brahman?”
“Yes, Gotama”, Sonadanda answered; “fairness of face could be omitted. If such a man possessed the other four, namely, birth, Vedic studies, virtue and wisdom, he could truthfully be called a Brahman.”
“But of these four, would it be possible to omit one, and yet truthfully to call the man a Brahman?”
“Yes, Gotama, Vedic studies might be omitted. If such a man possessed the other three, namely, birth, virtue and wisdom, he could truthfully be called a Brahman.”
“But of these three would it be possible to omit one, and truthfully to call the man a Brahman!”
“Yes, Gotama, birth could be omitted. If such man possessed virtue and wisdom, he could truthfully be called a Brahman.”
It is evident that the good Sonadanda, led on by the Buddha’s skilful questioning, and preoccupied by the desire to give an answer that would win the Buddha’s admiration, was going much farther than orthodox Brahmans would be willing to follow him.
They might be willing to waive good looks and even Vedic studies, since a Brahman boy might not yet have begun his studies, while not all Brahmans attained to eminent knowledge of the Vedic texts. But for a caste which was already entrenching itself in hereditary privilege, and claiming to be sacrosanct by birth alone, to exclude birth as a qualification for Brahmanhood was not admissible. Therefore we are prepared for the immediate, vigorous protest which the Buddhist recorder tells us, was raised by Sonadanda’s Brahman companions:
“Say not so, noble Sonadanda, say not so! He is belittling our colour, our Mantras and our birth! Sonadanda is going over to the teaching of the ascetic Gotama!”
The recorder represents the Buddha as coming down somewhat heavily upon the protesting Brahmans, bidding them keep silent unless they thought that the distinguished Sonadanda was too ignorant and inept to speak for himself. But the recorder further represents Sonadanda as bravely taking up the cudgels in his own defence, and, incidentally, pressing forward the discussion in the direction of the conclusion which the Buddha desired to reach.
Sonadanda’s nephew had accompanied him, a comely youth, Angaka, by name. Pointing to him, Sonadanda said:
“Do the worthy Brahmans see our nephew Angaka?”
Sonadanda, receiving an affirmative answer, went on to characterize Angaka in a way that was somewhat too flattering to the young man’s vanity, and by implication, to the vanity of Angaka’s worthy uncle. Angaka, he said, was the living embodiment of the admirable qualities which had been described as characterizing the perfect Brahman. He was of spotless lineage, handsome, well versed in Vedic studies, virtuous and wise.
“But”, Sonadanda went on to say, “if Angaka should be guilty of taking life, of theft, of unchastity, lying and drunkenness, what would his birth, his comeliness, his Vedic Mantras profit him?”
It is worth noting that Sonadanda has so completely come over to the Buddha’s position, that he is here citing the five moral laws of the Buddha’s Order as the standard of righteousness; and he goes on to say that, if one be perfected in virtue and wisdom, he may truthfully be called a Brahman. This is really the expression of the Buddha’s ideal, and of his purpose: to call the Brahmans back to the true standard of Brahmanhood, the ancient spiritual standard, according to which a true Brahman was a knower of Brahma, a knower of the Eternal. Sonadanda here becomes the spokesman of the Buddha. He, who prided himself on his Brahman heredity, and his Vedic knowledge, is represented as setting these things aside, and basing genuine Brahmanhood on the possession of holiness and wisdom. This is exactly the ideal which the Buddha was striving to awaken in the hearts of the Brahmans.
The recorder then represents the Buddha as putting to Sonadanda another quest