McGovern, Nathan: The Snake and the Mongoose: The Emergence of Identity in Early Indian Religion

The purpose of this monograph, based on the author's doctoral thesis (McGovern 2013), is to critique a received "metahistorical" model for interpreting the origins of Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism, which "implicitly posits an essential characteristic" that explains the development of the three traditions throughout history: "an intrinsic dichotomy between the 'Brahmanical' and the 'non-Brahmanical'" (2019: 3-4).The model is based on the narrative of a conflict between two categories of philosophical-religious person in ancient India: brhmaa and ramaa.Brhmaas were householders who were born into the priestly class (brhman), educated in the Vedas, and represented Brahmanism.ramaas were non-Brahmanic celibate ascetics -the leaders of renunciant communities, like kyamuni, Mahvra, and Gola, and their followers -who rejected the Vedic-Brahmanic tradition and created "the ramaa traditions": Buddhism, Jainism, and jvikism.Hinduism developed from orthodox Brahmanism, but only after Brahmanism had absorbed certain ramaic elements, including the concept of sasra and the practice of renunciation/asceticism for liberation, which were alien to Brahmanism (cp.Bronkhorst 2007).The narrative derives in part from interpretations of texts that date from a century or more after kyamuni, Mahvra, and Gola had passed away.Ancient Greek authors (late 4th century BCE onwards) mention brhmaas (brakhmanas) and ramaas (sarmanai, samanaioi, garmanas) as two distinct groups of "philosophers" (philosophoi) or "naked wise men" (gumnosophistai).The inscriptions of king Aoka (3rd century BCE) designate as brhmaa and ramaa (in Middle Indo-Aryan = MIA) those who are worthy of receiving gifts, without indicating an opposition between them.Some scholars have claimed that already in ancient times the antagonism between brhmaas and ramaas was likened to the natural enmity between the snake and the mongoose, 1 but McGovern points out that although Patajali (2nd century BCE) gives ramaa-brhmaa as an example of a Pinian 'oppositional compound' (virodha-dvandva), it is only much later (7th century CE) that grammarians identify 'snake and mongoose' (ahi-nakula) as a compound of that kind.The compound ramaa-brhmaa and the phrase "ramaa and/or brhmaa" appear in early Buddhist and Jaina literature, but often as a single class of ascetics/philosophers, against which one's own identity can be constructed, rather than as two groups opposed to one another.McGovern argues that the formula "brhmaa and ramaa" was wide enough to include all those whom one wished to criticise: those who saw themselves as both brhmaa and ramaa, and those who saw themselves as brhmaa only (2019: 131-132).1 "An important feature of the heterodox texts" is the use of the "expression ramaa-brhmaa to denote the two opposing religious systems [].While the ramaas were against Vedic tradition and were upholders of renunciation, the brhmaas were upholders of the Vedic tradition and the householder status.This is evident in [] Patajali's use of the example of ramaa-brhmaa to illustrate an 'antagonistic compound' where he remarks that the opposition of the two was eternal like that of the snake and the mongoose" (