In Indian religions and philosophies, a à Âramaá¹Âa (from Sanskrit) or samaá¹Âa (from Pali), sometimes anglicised as shramana, is a person "who labours, toils, or exerts themselves for some higher or religious purpose" or a "seeker, or ascetic, one who performs acts of austerity".
In the early Vedic texts, the term is an epithet for the great rishi sages in association with their ritualistic exertion. However, it has since come to refer to a broad class of spiritual movements originally comprising wandering ascetics from ancient India—collectively called the à Âramaá¹Âa tradition, Shramanic tradition, or occasionally Shramanism—historically parallel to but separate from movements that upheld the authority of Vedic scripture like the early Vedic religion and Brahmanism, as well as their Hindu successor movements. The à Âramaá¹Âa tradition includes Jainism, Buddhism, and others such as the ÃÂjëvika, Ajñana, and CÃÂrvÃÂka, while definitively excluding Hinduism. The tradition's name comes from the semantic narrowing of the term à Âramaá¹Âa to mean a religious individual who specifically rejects the authority of the Vedas; however, the word did not hold this connotation until certain post-Vedic texts considered canonical by Buddhists and Jains. In the Indian philosophical tradition, the terms ÃÂstika versus nÃÂstika largely equate to this distinction between Vedic versus non-Vedic (à Âramaá¹Âa) belief systems.
The à Âramaá¹Âa tradition became popular in the circles of mendicants from greater Magadha who developed yogic practices, and they also developed concepts popular in all major Indian religions such as saá¹ÂsÃÂra (the cycle of death and rebirth) and moksha (liberation from that cycle). à Âramaá¹Âa schools of thought have a diverse range of beliefs, ranging from accepting or denying the existence of the soul, believing or disbelieving in free will, following particular dress guidelines or going completely nude in daily social life, and strict vegetarianism and prohibitions on violence (ahimsa) or permissibility of meat-eating and violence.
According to Olivelle and Crangle, the earliest known explicit use of the term "à Âramaá¹Âa" is found in section 2.7 of the Taittiriya Aranyaka, a layer within the Yajurveda (Vedic scripture, c. 1000 BCE). It mentions à Âramaá¹Âa Rishis and celibate Rishis.
According to Jaini, only two references to the word "à Âramaá¹Âa" are found in the Vedic literature, one in verse 4.3.22 of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (7th-6th cent. BCE). It refers to a à Âramaá¹Âa as belonging to a class of mendicant, but it is not clear if this was a member of a non-Vedic order as described in the much later Pali-canon.
The word "à Âramaá¹Âa" is postulated to be derived from the verbal root ', meaning "to exert effort, labor or to perform austerity". The history of wandering monks in ancient India is partly untraceable. The term 'parivrajaka' was perhaps applicable to all the peripatetic monks of India, such as those found in Buddhism, Jainism and Brahmanism.
The à Âramaá¹Âa tradition refers collectively to a variety of renunciate ascetic traditions from the middle of the 1st millennium BCE. The à Âramaá¹Âas were individual, experiential and free-form traditions. The term "à Âramaá¹Âas" is used sometimes to contrast them with "Brahmins" in terms of their religious models. However, in the early texts, some pre-dating 3rd-century BCE ruler Ashoka, the Brahmana and à Âramaá¹Âa are neither distinct nor opposed. The distinction, according to Olivelle, in later Indian literature "may have been a later semantic development possibly influenced by the appropriation of the latter term [sramana] by Buddhism and Jainism". Part of the à Âramaá¹Âa tradition retained their distinct identity from Hinduism by rejecting the epistemic authority of the Vedas, while another part of the à Âramaá¹Âa tradition synthesized with Hinduism as one stage in the Ashrama dharma, that is as renunciate sannyasins.
Buddhist commentaries associate the word's etymology with the quieting (') of evil (') as in the following phrase from the 3rd century BCE Dhammapada, verse 265: ' ("someone who has pacified evil is called '").
The first usage of the term à Âramaá¹Âa in Jain literature is found in the earliest Jain texts, the Sutrakritanga, composed after the 2nd century BCE, and the ÃÂcÃÂrÃÂá¹ ga Sà «tra, which may have originated as an oral tradition after Mahavira's death but was principally compiled and heavily edited in its current form by Acharya Devardhigani Kshamashraman, c. 454 CE. According to Johannes Bronkhorst:<blockquote>Mainly on linguistic grounds, it has been argued that the ÃÂcÃÂrÃÂá¹ ga Sà «tra, the Sà «traká¹ÂtÃÂá¹ ga Sà «tra, and the UttarÃÂdhyayana Sà «tra are among the oldest texts in the canon. This does not guarantee that they actually date from the time of MahÃÂvëra, nor even from the centuries immediately following his death, nor does it guarantee that all parts of these texts were composed simultaneously.</blockquote>
The term à Âramaá¹Âa is also found in the earliest Digambara Jain text, Mulachara, composed around 150 CE. Digambaras maintain that the original ÃÂcÃÂrÃÂá¹ ga Sà «tra is lost, and Mulachara is the closest to the original teachings of Mahavira.
Pali samaá¹Âa has been suggested as the ultimate origin of the word Evenki (samÃÂn) "shaman", possibly via Middle Chinese or Tocharian B; however, the etymology of this word, which is also found in other Tungusic languages, is controversial (see ).
Several à Âramaá¹Âa movements are known to have existed in India before the 6th century BCE (pre-Buddha, pre-Mahavira), and these influenced both the ÃÂstika and nÃÂstika traditions of Indian philosophy. Martin Wiltshire states that the à Âramaá¹Âa tradition evolved in India over two phases, namely Paccekabuddha and Savaka phases, the former being the tradition of individual ascetic and latter of disciples, and that Buddhism and Jainism ultimately emerged from these as sectarian manifestations. These traditions drew upon already established Brahmanical concepts, states Wiltshire, to communicate their own distinct doctrines. Reginald Ray concurs that à Âramaá¹Âa movements already existed and were established traditions in pre-6th century BCE India, but disagrees with Wiltshire that they were nonsectarian before the arrival of Buddha.
According to the Jain Agamas and the Buddhist PÃÂli Canon, there were other à Âramaá¹Âa leaders at the time of Buddha. In the MahÃÂparinibbÃÂna Sutta (DN 16), a à Âramaá¹Âa named Subhadda mentions:
The traditional view of scholars in the field, represented for example by Govind Chandra Pande in his 1957 study on the origins of Buddhism, is that à Âramaá¹Âa began as a "distinct and separate cultural and religious" tradition from Vedic religion. However, this claim is disputed by several Indologists and Sanskrit scholars such as Patrick Olivelle.
Patrick Olivelle, a professor of Indology and known for his translations of major ancient Sanskrit works, states in his 1993 study that contrary to some representations, the original à Âramaá¹Âa tradition was part of the Vedic one. He writes,
According to Olivelle, and other scholars such as Edward Crangle, the concept of à Âramaá¹Âa exists in the early Brahmanical literature. The term is used in an adjectival sense for sages who lived a special way of life that the Vedic culture considered extraordinary. However, Vedic literature does not provide details of that life. The term did not imply any opposition to either Brahmins or householders. In all likelihood, states Olivelle, during the Vedic era, neither did the à Âramaá¹Âa concept refer to an identifiable class nor to ascetic groups as it does in later Indian literature.
The concept of renunciation and monk-like lifestyle is found in Vedic literature, with terms such as yatis, rishis, and à Âramaá¹Âas. The Vedic literature from pre-1000 BCE era, mentions Muni (à ¤®à ¥Âà ¤¨à ¤¿, monks, mendicants, holy man). Rig Veda, for example, in Book 10 Chapter 136, mentions mendicants as those with kÃÂà Âin (à ¤Âà ¥Âà ¤¶à ¤¿à ¤¨à ¥Â, long-haired) and mala clothes (à ¤®à ¤², dirty, soil-colored, yellow, orange, saffron) engaged in the affairs of mananat (mind, meditation).
The hymn uses the term vÃÂtaraà Âana (à ¤µà ¤¾à ¤¤à ¤°à ¤¶à ¤¨) which means "girdled with wind". Some scholars have interpreted this to mean "sky-clad, naked monk" and therefore a synonym for Digambara (a Jainism sect). However, other scholars state that this could not be the correct interpretation because it is inconsistent with the words that immediately follow, "wearing soil-hued garments". The context likely means that the poet is describing the "munis" as moving like the wind, their garments pressed by the wind. According to Olivelle, it is unlikely that the vÃÂtaraà Âana implies a class within the Vedic context.
The Vedic society, states Olivelle, contained many people whose roots were non-Aryan who must have influenced the Aryan classes. However, it is difficult to identify and isolate these influences, in part because the Vedic culture not only developed from influences but also from its inner dynamism and socio-economic developments.
According to Indian anthropologist Ramaprasad Chanda the origins of Sramanism back to pre-Vedic and pre-Aryan cultures, particularly those practicing magic. He posited that the practice of asceticism could be linked to the initiatory phases of seclusion and abstinence observed by shamans.
According to Bronkhorst, the à Âramaá¹Âa culture arose in "Greater Magadha," which was Indo-Aryan, but not Vedic. In this culture, Kshatriyas were placed higher than Brahmins, and it rejected Vedic authority and rituals.
Pande attributes the origin of Buddhism, not entirely to the Buddha, but to a "great religious ferment" towards the end of the Vedic period when the Brahmanic and Shramanic traditions intermingled.
The Buddhist text of the Samaññaphala Sutta identifies six pre-Buddhist à ÂrÃÂmana schools, identifying them by their leader. These six schools are represented in the text to have diverse philosophies, which according to Padmanabh Jaini, may be "a biased picture and does not give a true picture" of the shramanic schools rivaling with Buddhism,
These pre-Buddhist à ÂrÃÂmana movements were organized Sanghagani (orders of monks and ascetics), according to the Buddhist Samaññaphala Sutta. The six leaders above are described as a Sanghi (head of the order), Ganacariyo (teacher), Cirapabbajito (recluse), Yasassi and Neto (of repute and well known).
Jain literature too mentions Pà «raá¹Âa Kassapa, Makkhali GosÃÂla and Sañjaya Belaá¹Âá¹Âhaputta. During the life of Buddha, Mahavira and the Buddha were leaders of their à Âramaá¹Âa orders. Nigaá¹Âá¹Âha NÃÂtaputta refers to MahÃÂvëra.
According to Pande, Jainas were the same as the Niganthas mentioned in the Buddhist texts, and they were a well established sect when Buddha began preaching. He states that "Jainas" appear to have belonged to the non-Vedic Munis and Sramanas who may have been ultimately connected with pre-Vedic civilization". The à Âramaá¹Âa system is believed by a majority of Jaina scholars to have been of independent origin and not a protest movement of any kind, were led by Jaina thinkers, and were pre-Buddhist and pre-Vedic.
Some scholars posit that the Indus Valley civilisation symbols may be related to later Jain statues, and the bull icon may have a connection to Rishabhanatha. According to Dundas, outside of the Jain tradition, historians date the Mahavira as about contemporaneous with the Buddha in the 5th-century BCE, and accordingly the historical Parshvanatha, based on the c. 250-year gap, is placed in 8th or 7th century BCE.
It was as a à Âramaá¹Âa that the Buddha left his father's palace and practised austerities. Gautama Buddha, after fasting nearly to death by starvation, regarded extreme austerities and self-mortification as useless or unnecessary in attaining enlightenment, recommending instead a "Middle Way" between the extremes of hedonism and self-mortification. Devadatta, a cousin of Gautama, caused a split in the Buddhist sangha by demanding more rigorous practices.
The Buddhist movement chose a moderate ascetic lifestyle. This was in contrast to Jains, who continued the tradition of stronger austerity, such as fasting and giving away all property including clothes and thus going naked, emphasizing that complete dedication to spirituality includes turning away from material possessions and any cause for evil karma. The moderate ascetic precepts, states Collins, likely appealed to more people and widened the base of people wanting to become Buddhists. Buddhism also developed a code for interaction of world-pursuing lay people and world-denying Buddhist monastic communities, which encouraged continued relationship between the two. Collins states, for example, that two rules of the vinaya (monastic code) were that a person could not join a monastic community without parent's permission, and that at least one son remained with each family to care for that family. Buddhism also combined the continuing interaction, such as giving alms to renunciants, in terms of merit gained for good rebirth and good karma by the lay people. This code played a historic role in its growth, and provided a means for reliable alms (food, clothing) and social support for Buddhism.
Randall Collins states that Buddhism was more a reform movement within the educated religious classes, composed mostly of Brahmins, rather than a rival movement from outside these classes. In early Buddhism, the largest number of monastics were originally brahmins, and virtually all were recruited from the two upper classes of society â brahmins and kshatriyas.
ÃÂjëvika was founded in the 5th century BCE by Makkhali Gosala, as a à Âramaá¹Âa movement and a major rival of early Buddhism and Jainism. ÃÂjëvikas were organised renunciates who formed discrete communities.
The ÃÂjëvikas reached the height of their prominence in the late 1st millennium BCE, then declined, yet continued to exist in south India until the 14th century CE, as evidenced by inscriptions found in southern India. Ancient texts of Buddhism and Jainism mention a city in the first millennium BCE named Savatthi (Sanskrit à Âravasti) as the hub of the ÃÂjëvikas; it was located in what is now the North Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. In later part of the common era, inscriptions suggests that the ÃÂjëvikas had a significant presence in the South Indian state of Karnataka and the Kolar district of Tamil Nadu.
Original scriptures of the ÃÂjëvika school of philosophy once existed, but these are unavailable and probably lost. Their theories are extracted from mentions of ÃÂjëvikas in the secondary sources of ancient Indian literature. Scholars question whether ÃÂjëvika philosophy has been fairly and completely summarized in these secondary sources, written by ancient Buddhist and Jaina scholars, who represented competing and adversarial philosophies to ÃÂjëvikas.
According to the 2nd century CE text Ashokavadana, the Mauryan emperor Bindusara was a patron of the Ajivikas, and it reached its peak of popularity during this time. Ashokavadana also mentions that Bindusara's son Ashoka converted to Buddhism, became enraged at a picture that depicted Buddha in negative light, and issued an order to kill all the Ajivikas in Pundravardhana. Around 18,000 followers of the Ajivika sect were executed as a result of this order.
Jaina texts mention separation and conflict between Mahavira and Gosala, accusation of contemptuous comments, and an occasion where the Jaina and Ajivika monastic orders "came to blows". However, given the texts alleging conflict and portraying Ajivikas and Gosala in negative light were written centuries after the incident by their à Âramaá¹Âa opponents, and given the versions in Buddhist and Jaina texts are different, the reliability of these stories, states Basham, is questionable.
Jainism derives its philosophy from the teachings and lives of the twenty-four Tirthankaras, of whom Mahavira was the last. Acharyas Umaswati, Kundakunda, Haribhadra, and others further developed and reorganized Jain philosophy in its present form. The distinguishing features of Jain philosophy are its belief in the independent existence of soul and matter, predominance of karma, the denial of a creative and omnipotent God, belief in an eternal and uncreated universe, a strong emphasis on nonviolence, an accent on anekantavada and morality and ethics based on liberation of the soul. The Jain philosophy of anekantavada and syÃÂdvÃÂda, which posits that the truth or reality is perceived differently from different points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth, have made very important contributions to ancient Indian philosophy, especially in the areas of skepticism and relativity.
Jain monastics are known as à Âramaá¹Âas while lay practitioners are called à ÂrÃÂvakas. The religion or code of conduct of the monks is known as the à Âramaá¹Âa dharma. Jain canons like ÃÂcÃÂrÃÂá¹ ga Sà «tra and other later texts contain many references to à Âramaá¹Âas.
One verse of the ÃÂcÃÂranga Sà «tra defines a good à Âramaá¹Âa:
The chapter on renunciation contains a à Âramaá¹Âa vow of non-possession:
The ÃÂcÃÂranga Sà «tra gives three names of Mahavira, the twenty-fourth Tirthankara, one of which was à Âramaá¹Âa:
Another Jain canon, Sà «trakrtanga describes the à Âramaá¹Âa as an ascetic who has taken Mahavrata, the five great vows:
The Sà «trakrtanga records that prince, Ardraka, who became disciple to Mahavira, arguing with other heretical teachers, told Makkhali Gosala the qualities of à Âramaá¹Âas:
Buddha initially practiced severe austerities, fasting himself nearly to death of starvation. However, he later considered extreme austerities and self-mortification as unnecessary and recommended a "Middle Way" between the extremes of hedonism and self-mortification.
The BrahmajÃÂla Sutta mentions many à Âramaá¹Âas with whom Buddha disagreed. For example, in contrast to shramanic Jains whose philosophical premise includes the existence of an Atman (self, soul) in every being, Buddhist philosophy denies that there is any self or soul. This concept called Anatta (or Anatman) is a part of Three Marks of existence in Buddhist philosophy, the other two being Dukkha (suffering) and Anicca (impermanence). According to Buddha, states Laumakis, everything lacks inherent existence. Buddhism is a transtheistic philosophy, which is especially concerned with pratëtyasamutpÃÂda (dependent origination) and à Âà «nyatà(emptiness or nothingness).
From rock edicts, it is found that both Brahmans as well as à Âramaá¹Âas enjoyed equal sanctity.
The ÃÂjëvika school is known for its Niyati doctrine of absolute determinism, the premise that there is no free will, that everything that has happened, is happening and will happen is entirely preordained and a function of cosmic principles. ÃÂjëvika considered the karma doctrine as a fallacy. Ajivika metaphysics included a theory of atoms similar to the Vaisheshika school, where everything was composed of atoms, qualities emerged from aggregates of atoms, but the aggregation and nature of these atoms was predetermined by cosmic forces. ÃÂjëvikas were atheists and rejected the epistemic authority of the Vedas, but they believed that in every living being there is an ÃÂtman â a central premise of Hinduism and Jainism as well.
The à Âramaá¹Âa traditions subscribed to diverse Indian philosophies, significantly disagreeing with each other as well as with the six schools of orthodox Hindu philosophy. The differences ranged from a belief that every individual has a soul (self, atman) to asserting that there is no soul, from axiological merit in a frugal ascetic life to that of a hedonistic life, from a belief in rebirth to asserting that there is no rebirth.
A denial of the epistemic authority of the Vedas and Upanishads was one of the several differences between shramanic philosophies and orthodox Hinduism. Jaini states that while authority of vedas, belief in a creator, path of ritualism and social system of heredity ranks, made up the cornerstones of Brahminical schools, the path of ascetic self-mortification was the main characteristic of all the shramanic schools.
In some cases when the shramanic movements shared the same philosophical concepts, the details varied. In Jainism, for example, Karma is based on materialist element philosophy, where Karma is the fruit of one's action conceived as material particles which stick to a soul and keep it away from natural omniscience. The Buddha conceived Karma as a chain of causality leading to attachment to the material world and hence to rebirth. The Ajivikas were fatalists and elevated Karma as inescapable fate, where a person's life goes through a chain of consequences and rebirths until it reaches its end. Other à Âramaá¹Âa movements such as those led by Pakkudha Kaccayana and Purana Kashyapa, denied the existence of Karma.
The à Âramaá¹Âa traditions influenced and were influenced by Hinduism and by each other. According to some scholars, the concept of the cycle of birth and death, the concept of samsara and the concept of liberation may quite possibly be from à Âramaá¹Âa or other ascetic traditions. Obeyesekere suggests that tribal sages in the Ganges valley may instead have inspired the ideas of samsara and liberation, just like rebirth ideas that emerged in Africa and Greece. O'Flaherty states that there isn't enough objective evidence to support any of these theories.
It is in the Upanishadic period that shramanic theories influence the Brahmanical theories. While the concepts of Brahman and Atman (Soul, Self) can be consistently traced back to pre-Upanishadic layers of Vedic literature, the heterogeneous nature of the Upanishads show infusions of both social and philosophical ideas, pointing to evolution of new doctrines, likely from the shramanic movements.
à Âramaá¹Âa traditions brought concepts of Karma and Samsara as central themes of debate. à Âramaá¹Âa views were influential to all schools of Indian philosophies. Concepts, such as karma and reincarnation may have originated in the à Âramaá¹Âa or the renunciant traditions, and then become mainstream. There are multiple theories of possible origins of concepts such as Ahimsa, or non-violence. The ChÃÂndogya Upaniá¹£ad, dated to about the 7th century BCE, in verse 8.15.1, has the earliest evidence for the use of the word Ahimsa in the sense familiar in Hinduism (a code of conduct). It bars violence against "all creatures" (sarvabhuta) and the practitioner of Ahimsa is said to escape from the cycle of metempsychosis (CU 8.15.1). According to some scholars, such as D. R. Bhandarkar, the Ahimsa dharma of the à Âramaá¹Âas made an impression on the followers of Brahamanism and their law books and practices.
Theories on who influenced whom, in ancient India, remains a matter of scholarly debate, and it is likely that the different philosophies contributed to each other's development. Doniger summarizes the historic interaction between scholars of Vedic Hinduism and shramanic Buddhism:
Randall Collins states that "the basic cultural framework for lay society which eventually became Hinduism" was laid down by Buddhism.
Modern Hinduism can be regarded as a combination of Vedic and à Âramaá¹Âa traditions as it is substantially influenced by both traditions. Among the Astika schools of Hinduism, Vedanta, Samkhya, and Yoga philosophies influenced and were influenced by the à Âramaá¹Âa philosophy. As Geoffrey Samuel notes,
Some Brahmins joined the à Âramaá¹Âa movement such as CÃÂnakya and SÃÂriputta. Similarly, according to Jain tradition, a group of eleven Brahmins accepted Jainism and become Mahavira's chief disciples or ganadharas.
Patrick Olivelle suggests that the Hindu ashrama system of life, created probably around the 4th-century BCE, was an attempt to institutionalize renunciation within the Brahmanical social structure. This system gave complete freedom to adults to choose what they want to do, whether they want to be householders or sannyasins (ascetics), the monastic tradition was a voluntary institution. This voluntary principle, states Olivelle, was the same principle found in Buddhist and Jain monastic orders at that time.
Various possible references to "à Âramaá¹Âas", with the name more or less distorted, have appeared in ancient Western literature.
Clement of Alexandria makes several mentions of the à Âramaá¹Âas, both in the context of the Bactrians and the Indians:
Porphyry extensively describes the habits of the à Âramaá¹Âas, whom he calls "Samanaeans", in his On Abstinence from Animal Food Book IV . He says his information was obtained from "the Babylonian Bardesanes, who lived in the times of our fathers, and was familiar with those Indians who, together with Damadamis, were sent to Caesar."
German novelist Hermann Hesse, long interested in Eastern, especially Indian, spirituality, wrote Siddhartha, in which the main character becomes a Samana upon leaving his home.