groups which were not accommodated by the sacrificial system. The move-
ments that arose in the Gangetic plain often challenged “Vedic” authority
- they were perceived, by some bra ̄hman.as, as avaidika– people who did not
adhere to the primacy of vaidikametaphors. They were also called na ̄stikas
(that is, “unbelievers”). Further, most of the “heterodox” schools that
emerged were not theistic – that is, interested in the idea of “god.” (Even
the early Upanis.adic speculations did not articulate a notion of a theistic
being, rather of a monistic/non-personal essence.) Those heterodoxies
that were monistic, even chthonic (Ca ̄rva ̄kas, A ̄jı ̄vikas, Buddhists) referred
to matter as the single reality; dualistic schools ( Jainism, Sa ̄m.khya) spoke
of two co-eternal but impersonal realities. These heterodox movements
tended to stress action (karma) more than wisdom (jña ̄na) as a way to attain
liberation, though both Jainism and Buddhism spoke of wisdom as prelude
to attaining one’s destiny.
Among the less well known “heterodoxies” were the schools known as
Ca ̄rva ̄kas (materialists) and A ̄jı ̄vikas (those who deny the existence of eternal
entities [jı ̄vas]). As their names suggest, both were materialistic schools; only
matter was believed to have existed and this perpetuated itself by the logic
ofkarma. There was no eternal self or life after death, nor was there a “god”
or a universal essence. Life was as it appeared and was to be accepted as it
was if one chose to be free from the folly of thinking otherwise. Sa ̄m.khya,
on the other hand, was a dualistic system. There were two co-eternal realities:
prakr.ti– matter, the feminine, the “field”; and purus.a– spirit, the male, the
“knower of the field.” These two entities pervading the universe were
expressed in three attributes or gun.as:sattva– the propensity toward nobility,
knowledge and goodness; rajas– the propensity toward action; and tamas–
the propensity for torpor, lethargy, and inaction. Clearly the three had
intimations of older Vedic numerology and spiraled their way through
certain later expressions of Indian thought – not least importantly, in the
later chapters of the Bhagavadgı ̄ta ̄.
Jainism
The best-known of these “heterodoxies” are Jainism and Buddhism. It is
worth looking with more care at the development of each.
By the sixth century BCEJainism had become a recognizable option in the
Gangetic basin. Its systematization is attributed to a teacher called Maha ̄vı ̄ra
(literally, “great hero”). The Jain tradition claims he was the twenty-fourth
in a long line of tı ̄rthan.karas(literally, “forders of the stream”) who
epitomized Jain teachings. In fact, little historical evidence exists for any
earlier figures and much that is ascribed to Maha ̄vı ̄ra has become clouded
by myth and legend. The tradition claims that he was of noble birth, he
The Early Urban Period 37