and west, where overseas trade gave an alternative basis for state revenues. The
importance of this pattern for state-building in the European context is shown by
Tilly (1990). This may be a reason why the Jainas, associated with merchants, were
major contenders for state alliance in these regions. Conversely the Buddhists, with
their agrarian monastic base, fit Tilly’s alternative pattern of state formation:
landed revenues. Hence Buddhism declined in the south as the trade-based states
rose.- It is worth underlining that the so-called “six darshanas” or “orthodox philoso-
phies” (Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Yoga, Samkhya, Mimamsa, Vedanta), which are the
standard rubrics in virtually all general histories of Indian philosophy, were by no
means static or primordial positions. The notion of “six darshanas” was not
created until fairly late in the medieval period, and they developed, much as
philosophical schools did elsewhere, out of debates both among their own ranks
and across the attention space with non-Hindu rivals. The ideology of the darsha-
nas is part of the static bias which it is necessary to break through in order to
reconstruct the actual history of Indian intellectual life. - Sources for the networks which follow (EIP, 1977, 1981, 1987, 1990; Halbfass,
1991, 1992; Isayeva, 1993; Potter, 1976; Dasgupta, 1922–1955; Chattopadhyaya,
1972, 1979; Basham, 1989; Raju, 1985; Pandey, 1986; Nakamura, 1980; Dutt,
1962; Hirakawa, 1990; Conze, 1962; Kalupahana, 1992; Lamotte, 1958; Stcher-
batsky, 1962; Phillips, 1995). - Nakamura (1973: 33–35); Chattopadhyaya (1972: 32–40); Gonda (1975); Stutley
(1980). For a position stressing the long-term unity of orthodox Hinduism since
the early Vedas, see Smith (1994). On the other side, see Krishna (1991). - These separate groups of teachers were recognized outside the Vedic texts as well.
The Buddha himself refers to followers of the Samaveda, Rigveda, and the two
Yagurvedas (Barua, 1974: 284). Krishna (1991: 83–84) argues for even more
sub-splits within the schools of the Vedas. - It is not clear when the Upanishads actually became standard parts of the Vedic
transmission schools; as we shall see, the early and middle Upanishads depict
freelance sages who are quite critical of Vedic priestcraft. The reorganization of
Upanishadic lore into a broad pan-Vedic coalition may have occurred in the early
centuries of the Common Era. - E.g., Chand. Up. 7.1.2; Brihad. Up. 1.5.5 and 4.1.2 (700–500 b.c.e.). Somewhat
later the Aitareya (1.3.9), about 500 b.c.e., mentions only the three Vedas. The
Buddhist Jataka tales, ca. 300 b.c.e., similarly refer to the three Vedas; so does
Kautilya’s Arthashastra, which itself draws on spells from the Atharva, as from a
separate tradition, as “secret means” for spying and destroying enemies (bk. 14).
The earliest to list all four as Vedas is the Mundaka Upanishad (1.5), ca. 350–300
b.c.e. But the late Maitriyana (6.32) still lists only three Vedas and calls the Atharva
“hymns,” indicating that the canon was not settled as late as 200 c.e. Dates from
Nakamura (1973: 77–78); see also OHI, (1981: 86–87, 107). - Krishna (1991: 95–109) points out that the “Upanishads” are an inchoate category
of texts, selected under that label from a wide variety of sources and time periods.
Far from constituting “the end of the Vedas,” they were often selected from
962 •^ Notes to Pages 193–195