internal disagreement in their intellectual stance. They have relatively little
effect on the creative realignments of other factions; one could introduce the
discussion almost anywhere, since their positions rarely change, and anywhere
they would tend to break the flow of the narrative. The difficulty of writing
smoothly about them illustrates exactly what was their problem in the intel-
lectual field: they were always a side issue, never able to get into the center of
the argument. We see the pattern in three such schools.
The Pudgalavadins were a well-established sect virtually throughout the
lifetime of Buddhism in India. Although they were attacked both early (e.g.,
by Moggaliputta-tissa, ca. 250 b.c.e.) and late (e.g., by Kamalashila, early 700s
c.e.) for their doctrine of enduring personality, they appear to have undergone
no important intellectual changes. Their extreme position within Buddhism, a
heresy from the point of view of every other sect, helped to keep them
doctrinally stable; their extremeness precluded alliances and the intellectual
changes that come with them. One is reminded of a parallel in Greek philoso-
phy. The Epicureans were famous for the unusual stability of their doctrine
across the five hundred years of their existence, as well as for their social
isolation from other philosophers; this too fits the pattern of an extreme school
at a disreputable end of the philosophical spectrum.
Another such case is the Ajivikas, who originated in the same network as
Mahavira and the Buddha, and survived down through 900 c.e. (Basham,
1951). Their distinctive doctrine was an extreme fatalism with regard to
karma, whose effects cannot be overcome by any effort. They also appropri-
ated the early atomism of Pakudha Kaccayana. This gave them a distinctive
slice of intellectual turf among the movements of the time, whereas in social
practice they were similar to the other charismatic ascetics, and especially close
to the Jainas in their nakedness and extreme asceticism. Although the apparent
inconsistency between their fatalism and their liberation-seeking practices was
frequently pointed out by their opponents, as often happens, the inconsistency
did not prevent them from surviving for many generations; external attacks on
their emblematic doctrine may even have contributed to group solidarity.
Such schools are long-standing when they have a stable niche, if only a
modest one, in the realm of material support as well as within intellectual
space. The Jainas had a niche of this sort. The Jainas nicely illustrate the
difference between organizational fragmentation and intellectual splits. Some-
time between 300 b.c.e. and 100 c.e., the Jainas split into two branches,
Digambaras (“space-clad”) and Shvetambaras (“white-clad”); the former car-
ried on the old tradition of asceticism to the point of nakedness, while the
latter mitigated this strictness. This was a split over disciplinary practices and
property, rather like the first Buddhist schism. The larger, more moderate
white-clad branch went on to split further into some 84 sects, while the more
External and Internal Politics: India • 253