chants were attracted while agricultural pursuits were excluded. Its base was
narrower than that of the popular Hindu cults or the Buddhists in their prime.
In periods when coastal trade flourished, Jainas were capable of accumulating
wealth on a scale unmatched by the Brahman-centered rural economy. Since
this was the same resource base which made possible most of the stronger
states in the south and on the western coast, Jainism became embroiled in
violent state conflicts with overtones of religious war. Jainism was displaced
from the south after 1130 as new Shaivite and Vaishnavite movements modified
the caste system to allow Hindus access to commercial enterprise, in which
they became predominant by Mogul times (Braudel, [1979] 1984: 484–520).
Never as large a religion as Buddhism, Jainism survived longer. From its
relatively weak base, it played a rather cautious role as a bystander in the
unfolding of intellectual space.hinduism
The ascendancy of Hinduism was not simply a result of the caste system. Caste
was compatible with Buddhism, too, as far as the activities of the lay world
were concerned; throughout its history in India, Buddhism often recruited from
among the Brahmans, and transcendence of caste took place only among
monks. We find kings using Brahmanical rituals even while they were giving
Buddhism some of its richest patronage: Horse sacrifices were performed, one
by the Andhran king to inaugurate his capital, at the very site where the great
monastery complex at Nagarjunakonda was built a few years later, another by
the Gupta emperor who founded the great monastery-university at Nalanda;
even the extremely pro-Buddhist Sri Lankan and Southeast Asian kings used
Brahmans for royal rituals for lack of a Buddhist form of coronation (Dutt,
1962: 126–128, 330; Gombrich, 1988: 145). Yet Hindu cults themselves
sometimes transcended caste. This was true of the antinomian Shaiva ascetics,
and of the popular bhakti cults (such as the followers of Krishna), which
promised salvation to worshippers from any caste (Pandey, 1986; Eliot, 1988:
2:248–256). Caste became most explicitly an issue between Hindus and Bud-
dhists relatively late—in the 600s and 700s c.e., when Mimamsakas and
Naiyayikas defended the philosophical basis of caste, and Buddhists such as
Kamalashila attacked it. But this was at the turning point of Hindu ascendancy
over Buddhism, when militancy peaked on both sides.
Hinduism was not a primordial religious identity but a self-conscious united
front that gradually built up in opposition to Buddhists and Jainas. At first
there was only a series of separate strands coming down from the ancient
theistic cults and the Sanskrit literature that accumulated upon the Vedas. Such
movements did not necessarily have much unity; the Shaivas were at first
scorned by the Brahmans as phallic worshippers, and most of their Vedic188 • (^) Intellectual Communities: Asian Paths