INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS

The reactions by the various priest-communities to all of these complex developments, including the emergent new social reality, the increasing influence of the various shramana mendicant communities (especially the power and influence of the Buddhists under the pan-Indian empire of Ashoka and the Mauryan-s), and the surge or resurgence of simple devotional piety, were not, as might be anticipated, defensive rejection or condemnation, but, rather, to a remarkable extent, assimilation and accomodation, and this process of assimilation or accomodation can be seen in the new literature that is taking shape in Indo-Brahmanical circles towards the end of the preceding period (alluded to briefly in the previous section), that is to say, the last two centuries B.C.E. and the first centuries of the Common Era.

Since this new literature attains its final redaction in the first centuries of the Common Era, it is, therefore, best treated in what we are calling the Indic (Hindu-Buddhist-Jain) period (ca., 300 - l200 of the Common Era), although it should be carefully noted that much of this literature contains material that is much older than the third century of the Common Era. This is also the time when Mahayana Buddhist literature emerges together with the later texts of the earlier Buddhist and Jain traditions as well. One also finds the emergence of Tantric traditions (both Hindu and Buddhist) in this period (especially after the fifth century of the Common Era), and this same period also marks the beginning of systematic, classical Indian philosophizing (in Hindu, Buddhist and Jain contexts) that will generate a rich and highly polemical technical literature over the next thousand years or more.

THE INDIC PERIOD

Sometimes writers refer to this period as a "classical Hindu" period, and it is true enough that one can legitimately begin to use the term "Hindu" in this Indic period. But what is striking is that much more than a "classical Hindu" tradition is emerging. What is emerging, rather, is a composite Indic tradition with Hindu, Buddhist and Jain components, incorporating various regional cultural identities, and assimilating as well older, archaic village traditions. In other words, what is emerging is a pan-Indian cultural vision that brings together components of the ancient Indus Valley culture, Indo-Brahmanical traditions and Indo-Shramanical traditions in a manner that nicely mirrors the three levels of socio-political life on the subcontinent, that is, the local, the regional and the pan-Indian.

As mentioned above, the Indo-Brahmanical contribution to this emerging Indic civilization can be seen in the new literature coming into prominence in the period. This new literature as a whole is referred to as literature "worthy to be remembered" (smriti) in order to distinguish it from the literaure that is considered to be authentic "scripture" (shruti), that is to say, the Veda-s (including the Upanishads) that we have already discussed. Interestingly enough, however, even though Hindus for the most part only accept the Veda-s as shruti, in fact, most of the basic ideas and practices of Hindu traditions derive from this new smriti literature. In other words, Hindus for the most part pay little more than lip service to the Vedic shruti. The point can also be made in terms of the emerging social reality. Whereas the Vedic shruti is taken seriously by a small subset of priests, the smriti texts are taken seriously by the overwhelming majority of Hindus, regardless of class or caste identity.

This new literature includes the following:

(a) the great epic of India known as the Mahabharata, the story of the great war between two branches of a family (the Kurus and the Pandus) that establishes the ancient kingdom of Bharatavarsha (the "Land of the Sons of Bharata") and includes within it the most popular and beloved text of the Hindu tradition, the Bhagavad-gita or "Song of the Lord," featuring the teachings of Krishna, an incarnation or "descent" (avatara) of the mighty god Vishnu, who fights on the side of the victorious Panduus against the evil Kurus;

(b) a second epic known as the Ramayana, a story of another great war, this time between Rama, another incarnation or "descent"of the mighty Vishnu, and the great demon, Ravana, who had kidnapped Rama's beloved wife, Sita, and carried her off to his fortress in the far South (present-day Sri Lanka), from which captivity Rama rescues her with the help of a mighty army of monkeys led by the beloved monkey god, Hanuman;

(c) a group of texts called Puranas or "Old Tales," repositories of the great myths and legends of the Hindu traditions, largely having to do with cosmogony or how the world came to be, and with the beloved stories and tales about the three high gods of the Hindu traditions, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva; and finally,

(d) a group of law-books called Dharmashastras, the most famous of which is the "Law-Book of Manu", which provide detailed discussions of such matters as the proper purposes of life, the stages of life, the caste system and the manner in which the community is to be governed. Mention should also be made here to another class of texts, of some importance in terms of Hindu notions of statecraft, namely, the literature of the "science of material gain" (artha-shastra) and especially to the famous Arthashastra attributed to Kautilya, purportedly a minister of state under Chandragupta Maurya (the founder of the Mauryan dynasty) in the fourth century B.C.E. The core of the work may well be traceable to the time of Chandragupta, but the present redaction of the extant text is probably from the first centuries of the Common Era.

As mentioned at the outset of this section, all of these texts contain material that is very old, probably going well back into the earlier Indo-Shramanical period already discussed, but they all receive their final form and general acceptance in this Indic period which coincides, at least initially, with the rise of the second great dynastic unification of the Indian subcontinent under the Gupta kings, c., 320 - 540 of the Common Era.

Regional polities and the Gupta consolidation.

Following the end of the Mauryan dynasty in l83 B.C.E., which earlier under Ashoka (269 -232 B.C.E.) had unified much of the subcontinent for the first time utilizing an essentially Buddhist ideology of dharma ("law" or "righteousness") for its legitimation, there had been an Indo-Brahmanical revival under the regional (North Central India) Shunga dynasty, beginning with Puòyamitra Shunga, who reigned from c., l83 B.C.E. to l47 B.C.E., as well as among other regional polities. For the most part, however, the period after the Mauryans (c., l83 B.C.E. to 300 C.E.) was characterized largely by decentralization and a series of invasions of the North-West region (the Indus Valley area and the Punjab) from the outside by Bactrian Greeks, Shaka-s (Scythians from Central Asia), Pahlava-s (peoples from the Iranian plateau) and, finally, Kushanas (probably Turkish tribesmen from Central Asia), and it would not be until the time of the Gupta consolidation in the fourth century that classical Hindu traditions could develop on a pan-Indian basis.

To be sure, the Kushanas under the leadership of the great Kanishka (ca., 78 - l44 C.E.) achieved hegemony over much of North India up to Varanasi, Central Asia (including Gandhara, the region famous for Greco-Buddhist art), and the Punjab region, a consolidation that somewhat approached the earlier Ashokan achievement. Moreover, Kanishka like Ashoka was a great patron of Buddhist traditions (mainly Mahayana but older Buddhist traditions as well). Overall, however, the Kushana achievement of Kanishka was only, finally, a regional one and hardly a match for the earlier Mauryan unification, and, thus, it must be said that from the time of the Shunga dynasty until the rise of the Gupta dynasty (c., 320 -540 of the Common Era), there was little or no political unity of any kind on the pan-Indian level.

Even the Gupta period is to a large extent only a regional polity in the sense that at its height of development under Chandragupta II (ca., 376 -4l5), it hardly controlled more than the North Central Gangetic basin, the Western region of what is now Gujarat and Rajasthan, and the North-East region of Bengal and Bihar, the remainder of the various regional polities being largely tributary "vassal"-like "feudatories" with varying degrees of independence. Much of the South was completely outside the Gupta domain, and much of the far North-West was still under Shaka and Kushana control. It is, however, under this period of Gupta consolidation that one can see the emergence of revitalized and resurgent Indo-Brahmanical religious traditions that can now legitimately be called "Hindu." Moreover, this is the case not simply in the area of religious traditions but with respect to the development of Indic culture generally, including literature, art, music, drama, dance, philosophy and so forth.

The Gupta dynasty faltered due to the onslaught of the Huna invasions (Turko-Mongols from Central Asia) in the North-West region beginning in the middle of the fifth century (ca., 454) and recurring again towards the close of the century (ca., 495). Thereafter for several decades the Hunas controlled much of the North-West and Western regions of India. The Gupta dynasty technically continued until the middle of the sixth century (ca., 540), but its actual power and influence had ended with the Huna invasions. There was one final attempt at consolidation of North Central India by Harshavardhana (or simply Harsha) of Kanyakubja (Kanauj) who came to power in 606 and managed to control most of North India by the end of his reign in the middle of the seventh century (c., 646). Like Ashoka and Kanishka before him, he was a great patron of Buddhism, both in its Mahayana and Tantric or Vajrayana forms

Apart from the Gupta consolidation and Harsha's brief consolidation of much of North India, the remainder of this Indic period (ca., 700 - l200 of the Common Era and beyond) marks primarily the emergence of a great variety of regional polities and cultures. including (a) the Pratiharas of Kanyakubja (c., ninth and tenth centuries), the Cahamanas of Ajmer and the Gahadavalas of Varanasi (c., the tenth and eleventh centuries) in the North Central region; (b) the Palas of Bengal and Bihar (c., the eighth through the twelfth centuries), and the Sena-s of Bengal (c., the twelfth century) in the North-East region; (c) the Chaulukyas or Solankis of Gujarat (c., the tenth through the thirteenth centuries) in the Western region; (d) the Paramaras or Pawars of Malwa, also in the Western region; and, finally, (e) the emergence into prominence for the first time of a variety of powers from the Peninsula or region of the South, namely, the Pallavas of Kanchi (c., the fourth through the ninth centuries), the the Chalukyas of the Western and Central Deccan (c., sixth through the tenth centuries), the Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta in the Central Deccan (c., eighth through the tenth centuries), the Cholas of Tamil Nadu (c., the ninth through the thirteenth centuries), the Hoysalas of Karnataka (c., the eleventh through the fourteenth centuries), the Pandyas of Madurai (c., the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries), et al. As Ronald Inden has shown in his recent book, Imagining India, these regional kingdoms were in geo-political interaction with one another in terms of the unfolding Indic "imperial formations" on the subcontinent.

Another regional kingdom that should be mentioned here, even though chronologically it comes during the later Indo-Islamic period, is the famous Vijayanagara (on the Tungabhadra River in the region of what is now the State of Karnataka, ca., l336 - l565), perhaps along with the Pallava, Rashtrakuta and Chola kingdoms one of the more important Hindu cultural centers in the history of the South. When it fell to a coalition of Sultans--the term "sultan," meaning "authority," is a title for a Muslim monarch--in the middle of the sixteenth century, it can be said that the tradition of old-style regional Hindu kingdoms had come to an end.

Also, two other regional polities, albeit considerably later, warrant perhaps some mention in this brief account of the rise of regional powers, namely, the Marathas in the Western region of the Deccan (Maharashtra), organized for the first time from a collection of clans and tribes into a unified regional force by the famous Shivaji (l627 - l680), and destined to become a major political force in the eighteenth century, and the Sikhs in the North-West or Punjab region, transformed from a reformist, devotional, religious movement in the sixteenth century into a powerful political, military movement by their tenth Guru, Govind Singh (l666 - l708). Both of these latter regional polities proved to be important resistance movements against both the Mughals and the British in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

It should perhaps also be pointed out here that the above-mentioned regional polities of the North and Western regions (including mainly the hill or tribal peoples and clans in the larger Rajasthan area) probably were the nucleus for the emerging Rajput clans who would prove to be the first and formidable line of defense against the onslaught of the Turko-Afghan Muslim invasions of Mahmud of Ghazni and then of Sultan Muhammad of Ghur in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The Rajput clans most likely were themselves originally outsiders to the subcontinent. Their ancestors could well have been the earlier Huna invaders who eventually became assimilated in the hill regions of Rajasthan. Possibly the Rajputs are a mix of Hunas (or even Kushanas) and indigenous tribal clans in the hills of Rajasthan. In any case, regardless of their origins, they were given caste status as "warriors" (kshatriyas).

The Rajput leader, Prthiviraja, is remembered for his great courage (and victory) at the first battle of Tarain in ll9l against Muhammad of Ghur. A year later, however, Muhammad of Ghur returned with a larger army under the command of his "slave"-general, Qutb ud-dân Aibak, and defeated and killed Prithiviraja. Muhammad of Ghur was himself eventually assassinated and his "slave" general in l206 proclaimed himself Sultan in Delhi, thereby beginning what has come to be known as the Delhi Sultanates (l206 - l526), including the so-called "Slave" dynasty (l206 - l290), the Khalji Sultans (l290 - l320), the House of Tughluq (l320 - l413), the Sayyid Rulers of Delhi (l4l4 - l45l) and finally the Lodi Dynasty (l45l - l526), a series of Turko-Afghan Sultanates finally overthrown by Babur, the founder of the great Mughal Dynasty (l526 - l757).

For the most part, apart from the later Delhi Sultanates and the great Mughal Empire, these regional kingdoms were Hindu in orientation, but there are important exceptions, the Palas of Bengal and Bihar, for example, favoring Buddhist traditions (especially Mahayana and Tantric forms) and the Chalukyas or Solankis of Gujarat patronizing Jain traditions. Moreover, it was not uncommon for ruling families to patronize a variety of religious traditions in addition to the Indo-Brahmanical. Also, the spread of the culture of North India to the South was accomplished in many instances by the spread of Buddhist and Jain institutions (monasteries, lay communities, and so forth). The Pallavas of Kanchi appear to have been one of the main vehicles for the spread of specifically Indo-Brahmanical or Hindu institutions in the South, a process that was largely completed after the Gupta age. This synthesis of northern and southern traditions produced a rich cultural mix over time.

Especially noteworthy in this regard is the contribution of the great Tamil poet-saints (c., the sixth through the ninth centuries), both Shaiva and Vaishnava, to the development of medieval Hindu bhakti traditions in the later Indo-Islamic period.

Hindu traditions. 

But let us return now to a discussion of the emergence of what can now in this Indic period be properly called "Hindu" tradition, in contrast to what up until now we have characterized simply as "Indo-Brahmanical." In this section, since the material is so extensive no attempt is made to trace various historical developments. The focus, rather, is on the remarkable synthesis achieved.

Hindu traditions in this Indic period now show themselves as an artful synthesis of ritual action (yajna and puja), disciplined meditation (yoga) and devotional piety (bhakti), shaped on one level by the old Indo-Brahmanical religion of ritual sacrifice, shaped on another level by the Indo-Shramanical and pre-Indo-Brahmanical traditions of disciplined meditation (Buddhist and Jain yoga) and devotion (Bhagavata and Pashupata traditions), but resonating as well to the spiritual rhythms of the old Indus Valley Civilization and the archaic village spirituality of the fourth and fifth millenia B.C.E. (ritual bathing, local fertility cults, religio-magical practices, and so forth).

This loosely structured collection of traditions, which is Hindu tradition, has a number of interesting features, including certain notions and practices about gods and goddesses, certain notions and practices about living things (including human beings) in terms of karman and rebirth together with strategies for attaining salvation or release, and certain notions and practices about social life having to do with the four proper purposes of human life (purushartha-s), the four stages of life (ashrama-s), the four castes (varnas, and the larger framework of jatis), and a theory of kingship and statecraft. Sometimes it is common for Hindus to refer to all of these features taken together with the expression "eternal law" or sanatana-dharma. The term "sanatana" means "eternal," "ancient," or "from of old." The term "dharma" means "law," "custom," "tradition," "duty," or simply "usage." The term dharma can also mean something like "ordinary religion," that is to say, it refers to the conventional practices of ritual behavior and duty to be expected from people as a result of their station in life in terms of family, occupation, region, and so forth. It is interesting to note that no Indian language has a term for our English word "religion." The closest approximation to the English expression "Hindu religion" in an Indian language is "Hindu dharma."

Gods and goddesses. 

There are, of course, many gods and goddesses in Hindu traditions, but most Hindus think of the various gods and goddesses as manifestations of one ultimate truth. Hindu traditions combine the old Vedic notion of the Brahman, the Ultimate or Absolute, with the notion of a plurality of forms (or murti-s) that the Ultimate or Absolute assumes, three of which are central in the everyday beliefs and practices of Hindus, namely, Brahma, the creator god, Vishnu, the preserving god, and Shiva, the destroying god. Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva taken together are referred to as the "three basic forms" (trimurti) of the Ultimate or Absolute. One can also think of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva in terms of the flow of time, with Brahma as the beginning, Vishnu as the middle, and Shiva as the end, but the notion of time is cyclical in Hindu thinking so that the beginning, the middle and the end are never once-for-all. Like the seasons of the natural year, so time itself and all of reality unfolds in endless cycles of beginnings, middles and ends.

Brahman or the Ultimate engages in an endless "play" (lila) of unfolding forms that brings into being the endlessly recurring cycles of creation, preservation and destruction. Moreover, the Absolute or the Ultimate does not only assume male forms. There are also female manifestations. Shri or Lakshmi is the goddess of abundance, often linked with Vishnu. Durga or Kali is the awesome power of the Great Goddess, able to devour the demonic and evil forces in the world, often linked with Shiva. Sometimes the Absolute or Ultimate assumes an androgyne form, a composite of male and female, known as the "Lord whose half is woman" (ardhanarishvara).

The Ultimate is boundlessly various, and so too are the cultic forms which everyday worship takes in the home and in the great temples. The devotees of Lord Vishnu, together with his many (altogether ten) "incarnations" or "descents" (avataras), the two most important of which are as Krishna (the divine hero of the Mahabharata as well as certain Puranas) and Rama (the divine hero of the Ramayana), are called Vaishnava-s ("followers of Vishnu") and have numerous temples and shrines throughout the subcontinent for their puja. Nearly two-thirds of all Hindus are followers of one or another form of Vaishnavism (including devotees of Krishna and Rama). The devotees of Shiva, whose mythology and ritual prescriptions are set forth primarily in certain Puranas, are called Shaivas ("followers of Shiva") and they too have numerous temples and shrines for their puja throughout India, especially in Tamil Nadu in the South, West Bengal in the North, and Kashmir in the far North-West. Perhaps as many as one-third of all Hindus are Shaivas of one kind or another. Some "forward" or high caste Hindus (overwhelmingly brahmanas) are somewhat more eclectic or non-sectarian in their deva-puja, not following any one particular deity but, rather, five: Surya (the sun-god), Shiva, Vishnu, Devi (the Great Goddess), and Ganesha (the elephant-headed son of Shiva and his consort, Parvati). They perform what is known as "puja or worship of five symbols (deities)" (panchayatana-puja). This tradition was supposedly established by the great Vedanta philosopher, Shankara, in the eighth century. Followers of this high caste tradition are usually called Smarta Hindus.

Ritual performance is still a major component in Vaishnava and Shaiva cultic environments, but there has been an important shift from the old Vedic ritual sacrifice to the newer Hindu focus on puja or ritual "worship." Whereas the Vedic yajna had its primary focus on the ritual process and the ritual sacrifice, the Hindu puja, whether in great public temples or in the home, focusses on the presence of the personal deity, Vishnu or Shiva or whichever deity is the focus of the puja. There is still the ritual invoking of the presence of the deity, the use of priests, chanting, ritual offerings of flowers, and so forth, and the use of fire, but the puja ceremony is a much more personalized devotion, involving image-making, image worship, devotional singing, dancing, and so forth. Similarly the great feasts and holy days of the ritual calendar usually center around the great exploits of the personal gods, their birth celebrations and other great events in their sacred narratives. Likewise rituals of pilgrimage and fasting become linked with episodes in the sacred narratives of the personal gods and the various sites of the divine activities.

These cultic changes closely parallel another development in the emergence of Hindu spirituality in contrast to the older Indo-Brahmanical traditions, and that is the focus on bhakti or loving devotion. To some extent, of course, some sense of devotion or love had undoubtedly been present in the old Vedic yajna, but much of Vedic ritualism creates the impression of emotional detachment. The focus is, rather, on the mechanical functioning of the sacrificial process itself and the overwhelming importance of the priests. There is some sense of devotion to a personal god in the emergence of Prajapati, the Lord of Creatures, in the later Vedic literature and clearly even a further movement towards devotionalism in some Upanishads, but in all of these contexts the emotional content is limited and constrained. Even the bhakti of the Bhagavad-gita (to be discussed below) is restrained and moderate. With the full emergence of Hindu spirituality, however, there is a new focus on personal involvement and loving devotion, and it appears to be clearly the case that Vaishnava and Shaiva theistic movements are absorbing the emotional energy of the local pre-Indo-Brahmanical devotional movements, such as those of the Bhagavatas and the Pashupatas, as well as the anti-brahmanical orientation of the Indo-Shramanical traditions with their focus on great hero-saints such as Mahavira and the Buddha.

Regarding bhakti or loving devotion, it is, of course, also essential to mention the contribution of the Tamil poet-saints, beginning during the Pallava period in the region of the South of the subcontinent, between the sixth and the ninth centuries. The devotional poems or songs of the Vaishnava poet-saints (called Alvars) and of the Shaiva poet-saints (called Nayanars) became widely popular in Tamil contexts, spread rapidly to Kannada-speaking and Marathi-speaking areas in what is now Karnataka and Maharashtra and finally spread to the Hindi-speaking regions in the North. Here again one can clearly see a reaction against the hieratic Indo-Brahmanical ritualism in favor of a more broadly based personal spirituality. In other words, this exuberant bhakti emotionalism appears to have clear linkages both with pre-Indo-Brahmanical local devotional traditions as well as with the old Indo-Shramanical repudiation of the authority of the priests. Thereafter from medieval times to the present, a focus on exuberant love and devotion directed to a particular deity or to a particular guru has been an important component of Hindu spirituality.

Devotees of the goddess, whether Kali or Devi or Durga, are called Shaktas, a term which means something like "relating to energy or power," referring to the "power" (shakti) of the goddess to create and sustain the world or the "power" of the goddess to destroy the demonic or to bring an end to all things. Whereas many of the traditions about the Vaishnavas, Shaivas and Shaktas are to be found in the Mahabharata, Ramayana and the Puranas, it should also be mentioned that there are other classes of texts, called Tantras ("esoteric manuals") and Agamas ("esoteric received traditions"), coming from a period beginning with the fourth or fifth century of the Common Era and thereafter, having to do with elaborate ritual practices and relating especially to Shakta or goddess-traditions. These traditions are frequently linked with Shaiva environments and, as already mentioned, may well be very old or, in other words, pre-Indo-Brahmanical or even pre-Indus Valley. They are especially prevalent in West Bengal and Assam in the North-East and in Kashmir in the far North-West. In addition to elaborate ritual practices, these Tantra texts also make frequent use of sexual symbols, for example, comparing the manner in which the goddess interacts with the world to the manner in which male and female interact in sexual intercourse.

Finally, it should be noted that Tantra-s are not to be found only in Hindu environments. They are also prominent in Buddhist traditions, especially the Vajrayana or third "turning of the wheel of the law." Indeed, inasmuch as West Bengal, Assam and Kashmir (together also with certain centers in South India) appear to be the original contexts for the Tantra and since these are also centers for Buddhist traditions, it has been suggested that Tantric traditions may have been originally Buddhist. This is unlikely, however, since the tone of Tantric spirituality is so obviously archaic and, thus, probably pre-Indo-Brahmanical and pre-Indo-Shramanical--in other words, pre-Hindu as well as pre-Buddhist. It is possible, of course, that although Tantric traditions are archaic, they may have first become part of mainstream or Great Tradition spirituality via Buddhist environments.

Karman, rebirth and strategies for release. 

As there is boundless variety in the manifestations of the Absolute on the divine level, so too there is boundless variety in the many forms of ordinary life, and human life is only one part of the hierarchy of living beings "from Brahmå down to a blade of grass," as an ancient Hindu text (verse 54 of the Samkhyakarika) puts it. The endless cycles of unfolding time and the boundless variety of living forms are controlled not by the gods and goddesses, as one might anticipate, but, rather, by a process or principle known as karman. Indeed, even the gods and goddesses are governed by karman. The term "karman" means "action" and refers to the simple principle that life is governed by behavior or practice, not only from the perspective of human life but from the perspective of the entire hierarchy of living forms. Moreover, just as one passes through various stages of life, so too death is only one more stage. After death, in other words, there will be a re-birth, to be followed in due time by another re-death, to be followed by another re-birth, and so forth.

Through endless cycles of recurring time, depending upon one's karmic heritage or trajectory, one might come to be embodied in any number of life-forms. There is a beginningless cycle of continuing transmigration (saësara) and rebirth (punarjanman) that parallels the seemingly endless cycles of unfolding time, and all are, as it were, "caught" in this web or network of recurring transmigration, "caught" not because of any divine power, but "caught," rather, by the unfolding effects of past actions. These endless cycles of karmic trajectories are frustrating and painful, and there is a deep urge within all living things to be free or to be released (moksha) from these endless cycles of recurring rebirth.

The human life-form, though painful like all other life-forms, is nevertheless a potentially liberating life-form, since the human life-form can exercise a good deal of control over an unfolding karmic trajectory, whereas non-human life-forms for the most part are largely victims of a mechanical unfolding of effects. By disciplined meditation that leads to correct insight or wisdom, known as the "discipline of knowledge" (jnana-yoga), or by disciplined meditation that allows one to become engaged in ordinary life but not to be attached to the fruits of one's action, known as the "discipline of action" (karma-yoga), or, finally, by disciplined meditation that involves devotion to a chosen deity who will aid the devotee in the quest for release, known as the "discipline of devotion" (bhakti-yoga), the human being can begin to control his or her own karman and to move towards "release" or moksha from the endless cycles of recurring transmigration and rebirth.

These three types of yoga are discussed at great length in the "Song of the Lord" or Bhagavad-gita, in which Krishna engages in a long dialogue with Arjuna, the general of the army of the Pandus in the great epic war of the Mahabharata. As the great war is about to begin, Arjuna loses his nerve for the battle, since he sees his own kinsmen in both armies and realizes that winning the battle will require the death of his own relations. The war, however, is a righteous undertaking, that is to say, one based on dharma, inasmuch as the opposing Kurus unjustly have deprived the Pandus of their portion of the kingdom. Krishna, who is Arjuna's charioteer, then explains that in this instance it is Arjuna's "duty" (again, dharma) to fight the war and that larger issues of truth and justice are at stake than simple family loyalty. The Bhagavad-gita is known and beloved by all Hindus, and the process of karman and rebirth together with the various strategies of yoga or disciplined meditation would be widely accepted by all Hindus down to the present time. If there is any one text that comes near to embodying the totality of what it is to be Hindu, it would be the Bhagavad-gita.

The Bhagavad-gita is important not only because of its artful expression of Hindu spirituality but also because of its historical place within the cultural history of the subcontinent. It was compiled in its final form most likely by a Vaishnava brahmana poet, or poets, in the first centuries of the Common Era, and like Indic civilization itself has many "layers" of meaning. On one level it accepts the older Indo-Brahmanical tradition, but it is highly critical of excessive ritual behavior. On another level it refers to the old Upanishadic notions of disciplined meditation or yoga, the Atman-Brahman formulation as well as the Samkhya purusha-prakriti formulation, and deals with them largely as forms of the "discipline of knowledge" (jnana-yoga), but makes clear that in many ways the "discipline of action" (karma-yoga) and the "discipline of devotion" (bhakti-yoga) are superior or to be preferred, partly because these latter are "easier" ways but also partly because these latter are much more relevant for ordinary people. Furthermore, the Gita deliberately makes use of Buddhist and Jain terminology, or, in other words, explicitly takes into account the old Indo-Shramanical traditions of yoga, and likewise incorporates the old Bhagavata tradition of bhakti or devotion. Finally, the text overall is given a Hindu Vaishnava flavor centering on Krishna as an "incarnation" or "descent" (avatara) of Vishnu. The Gita, in other words, is a remarkably syncretic discourse that beautifully illustrates from a Hindu angle the Indic (Hindu-Buddhist-Jain) tradition's profound appreciation for diversity together with an equally profound capacity for accomodating diversity. It is hardly an accident, therefore, that through the centuries the Gita has been commented upon by almost all of the schools and traditions of Hindu thought and practice, including even Gandhi and his political use of the text in the Indian nationalist movement.

The four purposes of life, the four stages of life the four castes and the Hindu conceptions of kingship and the state. 

In addition to notions and practices related to the gods and goddesses, cultic and sectarian developments, and basic attitudes about karman, rebirth and the various kinds of disciplined meditation (yoga) for attaining release, Hindu traditions also involve a complex variety of rules and regulations regarding social, economic and political life. These rules and regulations are set forth in a group of smriti-texts called Dharmashastras or "law-books." They are also reflected in the two epics, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana as well as in Kautilya's Arthashastra. Careful study of these texts shows that originally there was a great deal of variation regarding the rules and regulations of social life depending upon the region in which one lived. Eventually, however, certain general principles or categories were devised by way of providing an overview of Indian social life as a whole. These general principles or categories center primarily around three sets of four, namely, (l) the four proper purposes of human life (purushartha-s); (2) the four stages of human life (ahrama-s); and (3) the four caste-groupings (varnas or jatis). All of these can be taken together as expressing the Hindu's "obligations or duties with respect to stage of life and caste" (varna-ashrama-dharma). Closely related to these general principles is the Hindu theory of kingship and statecraft.

The "four proper purposes of life" (purushartha-s) refer to certain basic activities that all people can or ought to pursue: (l) dharma ("duty," "custom," "law"), the pursuit of one's duty, including all of the general and specific social obligations related to one's place in the family and community; (2) artha ("wealth," "work", "governance"), the pursuit of worldly advantage, or, in other words, making a living, pursuing an occupation, including not only everyday life in the family and local community but also the proper political functioning of the kingdom or state; (3) kama ("desire," "pleasure"), the pursuit of one's legitimate erotic and aesthetic activities, including sexuality, play, recreation, the arts, literature, and so forth; and (4) moksha ("release"), the pursuit of spiritual practices such as ritual performances (yajna or puja), meditation (yoga), and devotion (bhakti) in order to attain "release" from the continuing round of rebirth and transmigration.

The "four proper purposes of life" are correlated with the "four stages of life" (ahrama-s): (l) brahmacarin ("pursuing sacred knowledge"), the stage of being a student when a young person lives in the home of the teacher (guru) and learns about the tradition; (2) grihastha ("householder"), the stage of becoming married and raising a family and fulfilling one's basic social responsibilities in the community; (3) vanaprastha ("forest-dweller"), the stage of retirement from ordinary family life and social obligations when one begins to think about the ultimate goal of mokòa or spiritual release; and (4) samnyasin ("abandoning," "renunciation"), the final stage when one renounces all worldly attachments and becomes a naked, wandering ascetic in pursuit of moksha. Only a very few pursued the extreme of samnyasin, which began, interestingly enough, with the ritual performance of one's own funeral rites. It is probably the case that originally these "stages" were simply life-options, that is to say, they did not have to be observed sequentially. Later, in the early centuries of the Common Era, and especially in Manu, they were worked into a sequential series.

Finally, the "four proper purposes of life" and the "four stages of life" are correlated with the "four castes" (varnas, jatis). The word "caste" is from the Portuguese word "casta," meaning "breed," "race," or "kind." The word was first used by the Portuguese when they came to India in the sixteenth century in order to describe the peculiar social groupings that they noted among the people of India. There were collections of families or groups of families (a) having the same name, (b) intermarrying with one another, (c) following the same occupations for the most part, (d) following certain elaborate rules and restrictions about eating, drinking and exchanging with other groups, and (e) arranging themselves in each area in certain hierarchical orderings. Hindu traditions themselves (in the law-books or Dharmashastras) refer to this "caste" system with two different terms: "varna," meaning "color," and "jati," meaning "birth-group."

The term varna or "color" refers to the overall normative valuing or hierarchical arrangements among the many castes in terms of superior or inferior, and this overall valuing is fourfold: (l) brahmanas ("priests"), the highest castes, made up of those collections of families who were originally responsible for the performance of ritual actions, considered to be the purest and the most learned among the people of India; (2) kshatriyas ("warriors"), the next highest castes, made up of those collections of families with primary responsibilities in the areas of governance and the maintenance of social order, especially the function of kingship; (3) vaishyas ("belonging to the people"), those collections of families involved in ordinary economic productivity, including in modern times commerce and business of all kinds; and, finally, (4) shudras ("servile"), the lowest castes of servants and those collections of families who serve the higher castes. The highest three castes are referred to as "twice-born" (dvija), since they are eligible for initiation into sacred learning, or, in other words, they are sufficiently clean ritually to warrant study of the Veda-s or shruti. Shudras are not sufficiently clean to warrant exposure to the sacred learning. In addition to this hierarchical fourfold grouping, there is yet another grouping that is even lower than the shudras, namely, the so-called "untouchables" (a-sprishyas). These are collections of families considered to be polluted because they are involved in such activities as cleaning human waste areas, dealing with the dead (both human and animal), tanning, and so forth. Traditionally such untouchables lived in segregated areas outside of a main village or town.

In contrast to the term varna which is a normative or valuing notion, the other term for caste is descriptive or empirical, namely, jati or "birth-group." The notion of jati refers to the actual "birth-groups" in various parts of India, and they number altogether several thousand. In other words, from the perspective of a descriptive or empirical account of actual social life in India, there are not simply "four" castes but, rather, several thousand. In some areas of the subcontinent, there are almost no brahmanas, and jatis other than the brahmana become dominant. The term jati, in other words, is a much more precise, descriptive term regarding the thousands of castes that one actually finds in different parts of the subcontinent. Moreover, hierarchical patterns and rules of exchange differ markedly among the various jatis in different areas of India. To some extent one can correlate the varna-system with the jati-system, so that, for example, one might refer to various jatis as "sub-castes" of kshatriya-s or vashya-s, and so forth. The Hindu law-books (the Dharmashastras) also seek to correlate varna and jati, explaining the many hundreds and thousands of sub-castes to be the result of the mixture of castes in various regions. Overall, however, the correlations are not very precise and in many instances clearly forced, and for a proper understanding of the modern caste system one has to immerse oneself in the incredibly complex details of the jati-system in each area of the subcontinent.

As has been pointed out, the caste system is very old in South Asia, and the four varna-categories are mentioned already in the Rig Veda (X.90). It is difficult to know, however, if the system in ancient times resembles the system as it is described in the traditional law-books and in modern field studies. The groupings mentioned in the Veda could possibly be little more than a social division of labor, a kind of ancient class system. What is distinctive about a caste system, in contrast to a class system, is that for the most part one's status is determined by birth rather than by merit and that one's social identity is defined by an elaborate, hierarchical network of ritual exchanges rather than by one's individual economic status. To be sure, the Dharmashastras or law-books of this Indic period, especially perhaps the "Law-Book of Manu," provide clear evidence that a full-blown caste system was operating, but it is not as clear that social life always mirrored the system as articulated in the official texts. There is some reason to believe that over the centuries there has been a good deal more flexibility and mobility among caste groupings in various parts of India than is commonly thought. The more rigid, modern system of caste probably develops during the long centuries (ca., l200 - l750) of Muslim dominance in India when Hindu traditions became much more defensive and in-grown for the sake of communal survival.

A similar gap between the ideal and the real is to be noticed with respect to the theory of kingship and statecraft as set forth in the Law-Book of Manu and Kautilya's Arthashastra and as reflected in the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. As was true in the Buddhist traditions already discussed from the Mauryan period (fourth and third centuries B.C.E.), so too in these smriti-texts of the Hindu tradition, some core portions of which are roughly contemporary with the Mauryan period, there is a clear differentiation between the religious domain and the political domain, and the king's position, at least in theory, is a ritually subordinate one. To be sure, Hindu kings are often said to be descended from lineages going back to mythical times.

The king, nevertheless, is often only human in many conceptualizations of kingship, and his function as ruler is clearly differentiated from and subordinated to the function of the priest. Already from Vedic times, the role of the warrior is distinguished from that of the priest. It is the duty of the chieftain or ruler to maintain overall order (dharma) between castes and communities and to protect the people. The king or ruler, however, is dependent on the priest for legitimation. It is the priest who performs the sacrifice which enthrones the king. The king in return gives lavish gifts of cattle and land to the priest.

In fact, of course, there is more than a little evidence that the actual historical situation was quite different from the ideal characterization. In some instances, priests themselves became rulers, and there are many examples of rulers coming from other than priestly or kshatriya groups. Shudra-s, and even untouchables, came to power at one or another region or time on the subcontinent. Similarly, Kautilya's Arthashastra portrays a largely pragmatic and opportunistic picture of royal behavior that diverges a good deal from the cultural ideal of the king as protector of dharma.

Nevertheless, it is fair to say that Rama with his obedient and loyal queen, Sita, together with the kingdom of Rama (rama-rajya) as reflected in the Ramayana, and to a somewhat lesser degree the victory of the Pandus in their righteous battle against the usurping Kurus for the sake of maintaining proper order (dharma) as reflected in the Mahabharata, have continued through the centuries and even down to the present day to serve as fundamental ideals regarding authentic governance and the relation between state and society in Hindu sensibilities.

In this Indic period, then, specifically "Hindu" traditions have come into focus: the principal gods and goddesses, the basic patterns of worship and ritual performances among Vaishnavas, Shaivas and Shaktas in the home as well as great public temples (including images and image-worship, devotional songs, great religious festivals, pilgrimage, and so forth), the vast compilations of smriti-literature (the great epics, the beloved Bhagavad-gita, the Puranas and the elaborate Dharmashastras), the appearance of the ritual-erotic texts, the Agama-s and Tantra-s (among certain Vaishnava, Shaiva and Shakta groups), the formulation of the basic notions of karman and rebirth together with the development of the various meditational strategies (types of yoga) for overcoming the effects of karman, and, finally, an elaborate synthesis of the totality of social life in terms of the four purposes of human life, the four stages of human life, the four castes and the Hindu conceptualizations of the state and kingship. As mentioned earlier, Hindus themselves sometimes refer to all of this as sanatana-dharma, the "eternal law," or as varna-ashrama-dharma, the "obligations or duties with respect to stage of life and caste."

Indian philosophy and the Indic mendicant life. 

Apart from the development of specifically "Hindu" traditions in this Indic period, mention should also be made, at least briefly, of two other closely related cultural traditions, namely, Indian philosophy and Indian monasticism or the Indic mendicant life. They are closely related and deserve to be treated together for two important reasons. First, almost all of the Indian philosophers within this Indic period, as well as before and after, were deeply concerned about spiritual freedom whether expressed in terms of "release" (moksha), "final cessation" (nirodha, nirvana) or "isolation" (kaivalya, kevalin), and, hence, it is hardly an accident that many of these philosophers were saënyasins ("renouncers"), bhikshus (mendicants), munis ("inspired sages"), parivrajakas ("wandering ascetics"), and so forth, that is to say, most of them were mendicants, monastics or spiritual virtuosos of one kind or another. Already from ancient times there were sages that lived apart from ordinary conventional society in hermitages or ashramas. Traditions of meditation, religious practice and philosophical reflection were transmitted frequently in one-on-one teacher-student (guru-shishya) relationships, referred to as the guru-parampara (the authoritative "line of teachers"). Spiritual authority or teaching authority, in other words, was centered not in books, or doctrines, or institutions, but, rather, in living persons, who were perceived to be spiritual masters and who passed on their knowledge and wisdom in one-on-one guru-shishya encounters.

Even in the more highly organized monastic institutions of the Buddhists and Jains, the role of the particular meditation-master or guru was central. Moreover, in the larger monastic contexts it was expected that monks would gather together only for certain stated times of the year. Other than those stated times, they would go off and practice the life of meditation as solitary practitioners and wandering ascetics. The ancient Yogins, Mahavira, Gautama the Buddha, Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, Ishvarakrishna, Patanjali, Dignaga, Dharmakirti, Shankara, Ramanuja, et al., were all linked in one way or another with the mendicant or monastic life. Even the schools of thought that focus on technical problems of logic, epistemology, inferential reasoning and philosophy of language without exception make reference to spiritual wisdom and moksha or nirvana as the final goal of their endeavors.

A second important reason for treating Indian philosophy and Indian monasticism or the Indic mendicant life together is that both cultural traditions provide clear evidence that this Indic period is much more than a "classical Hindu" period. Clearly Hindu, Buddhist and Jain traditions of philosophizing are in polemical encounter with one another throughout most of the period under review (from the first centuries of the Common Era through the twelfth century), and the institutional environments for these encounters are largely the monasteries of the older Buddhist schools, the Jains, the Mahayana Buddhists, the ashrama-s and later matha-s ("monasteries") of the Advaitins, the Vishishtadvaitins, et al. What is emerging in the period, in other words, is not simply a classical "Hindu" philosophizing together with its mendicant or monastic base, but, rather, a much broader "Indic" philosophizing that encompasses Hindu, Buddhist and Jain components along with a variety of monastic institutional environments.

To some extent, of course, we have already referred to Indian philosophizing, at least in its incipient, pre-systematic forms as found in the Indo-Brahmanical, Upanishadic speculations about atman (the "Self") and Brahman (the "Ultimate" or "Absolute"), or the old Samkhya formulation of purusha ("pure consciousness") and prakriti ("materiality" or "nature"). Also, we have discussed the old Indo-Shramanical Jain speculations about jiva ("self") and ajiva ("non-self") and the early Buddhist focus on No-Self (anatman) and radical transience (anitya). We have also noticed the emergence of a number of key philosophical notions such as karman ("action"), saësara ("transmigration"), punarjanman ("rebirth"), dharma ("law," "duty" or even "religion"), moksha ("release"), nirodha ("cessation"), nirvana ("spiritual quiescence") and perhaps most important of all, yoga ("disciplined meditation").

In terms of systematic formulation, it is in the first centuries of the Common Era that the various technical traditions of Indian philosophy begin to take shape, each one centering around a founding figure and a collection of utterances (sutra-s) or verses (karikas). The term "sutra" means "string" or "cord" and refers to abbreviated aphorisms composed or compiled by teachers (gurus) for purposes of teaching a particular subject-matter. Most teaching was done orally, and the compilations of sutras became the vehicle for memorizing the contours of a subject. The term "karika" means simply a concise "verse" and like the "sutra" is primarily a vehicle for teaching a particular subject-matter. Followers of these various traditions, or successors in the line of transmission (guru-parampara or "the sequence of teachers") would then write elaborate commentaries and subcommentaries on the original

sutras and karikas, and over the centuries a huge technical commentarial tradition developed for each of the systems. What distinguishes this technical philosophizing from older traditions of speculation are (a) a concern for specifying at the outset the means of knowing (pramana), such as perception, inference, shruti, and so forth, of a particular school and for defending those means, (b) a concern to define terms precisely and technically, (c) a concern that arguments be formulated in a correct manner, (d) a fair accounting of the views of other schools together with a polemical attack on those views, and (e) an attempt to present a consistent and clear overall system of thought.

The technical schools of Hindu philosophy are six in number, and all of them appear to have taken shape in the early centuries of the Common Era. They are designated "Hindu" or astika (literally "existent" but really meaning "authentic" or "believing"), since they accept the validity of the Indo-Brahmanical shruti (that is, the Vedas, including the Upanishads) as a valid means of knowing (pramana). Buddhist and Jain traditions of thought are called nastika ("inauthentic" or "non-believing"), since they do not accept Indo-Brahmanical shruti and rely only on perception and inference as means of knowing (pramanas). There are also references to an old materialist school, called Charvaka (possibly a proper name for the founder) or Lokayata (meaning "common" or unrefined or low caste), which is also considered nastika and supposedly accepts only perception as a means of knowing (pramana).

The Hindu systems are usually discussed in three pairs, namely, Samkhya and Yoga, Nyaya and Vaisheshika, and Mimamsa and Vedanta. The oldest system of technical philosophy in the Hindu tradition is that of the Samkhya, set forth in a text entitled the Samkhyakarikas, composed by a certain parivrajaka ("wandering ascetic") named Ishvarakrishna. Closely related is the Yoga system of Patanjali as set forth in the aphorisms he compiled (probably shortly after the Samkhyakarikas), entitled the Yogasutras. The term "samkhya" means "rational enumeration," and the two systems of Samkhya and Yoga deal respectively with the theory and practice of meditation, centering around the old dualist framework of pure consciousness (purusha) and materiality (prakriti) deriving from the old Upanishadic speculations. The next pair, Nyaya and Vaisheshika, founded respectively by the sages Gautama and Kanada, together with the two sutra-collections, the Nyayasutras and the Vaisheshikasutras, have to do with logic and what might be called a system of primitive physics. Nyaya ("logic") emphasizes how to argue and how to form correct arguments. Vaisheshika ("specific elements") sets forth a naive realism based on a theory of elementary atomic constituents. They represent a pair since Vaisheshika accepts the logic of Nyaya and Nyaya accepts the naive realism of Vaisheshika. The third pair, Mimamsa and Vedanta, the earliest exponents of which were respectively the sages Jaimini and Badarayana and their respective sutra collections, the Mimamsasutras and the Brahmasutras, have to do with the correct interpretation of the Vedas and the Upanishads, that is to say, the correct interpretation of "scripture" (shruti). Mimamsa ("measuring" or simply "scriptural exegesis") deals with the ritual portions of the Vedic sacrificial system and the elaborate hermeneutical rules for ritual performance. Vedanta ("end of the Veda") deals with the knowledge portions of the Upanishads, focussing primarily on the old Upanishadic speculations relating to the atman, Prajapati, tapas, and so forth.

In these early centuries of the Common Era, one also sees the development of systematic Buddhist and Jain philosophy. To be sure, both the Buddhist and Jain traditions are a good deal older than the systematic Hindu schools of the first centuries of the Common Era. Buddhist and Jain traditions go back to Gautama the Buddha and Mahavira in the sixth century B.C.E. and the canonical writings in Pali, Prakrit and Sanskrit (the Buddhist Tripitaka or "three baskets" and the Jain Agama-s or "received teachings"). Nevertheless, it is not much before the beginning of the Common Era that Buddhist and Jain thought become systematic in the sense of technical philosophizing along the lines of pramana-theory, precise definitions and polemical interaction with other traditions.

If the Samkhya was the first of the Hindu schools to take systematic shape, then for the Jain tradition one would probably point to a work such as Umasvati's Tattvarthasutra ("Sutra-s on Jain Truth") in the second century of the Common Era, a work that systematizes Jain thought for the first time, uses the medium of Sanskrit and is in polemical tension with other traditions. On the Buddhist side, one would point to the Abhidharmakosha ("Compendium on Abhidharma or Philosophical Matters") and the Abhidharmakosha-bhåshya ("Commentary on the Compendium) of Vasubandhu, a Buddhist thinker of the fourth century who discusses the older theories of the School of the Elders in a systematic manner (and specifically those schools known as Sarvastivada and Sautråatika) but who is also a bridge figure to the newly developing Mahayana or Great Vehicle Buddhist thought.

Mahayana or Great Vehicle Buddhist philosophizing begins in the first centuries of the Common Era with a group of Sanskrit texts called the "Perfection of Wisdom", which set forth the new Buddhist ideal of the bodhisattva ("enlightenment being" or "being on the way to enlightenment") who extends compassion to all suffering creatures and who cultivates the "perfection of wisdom." Mahayana philosophy then develops in three important and innovative directions. First, a second century monk by the name of Nagarjuna develops a rigorous negative dialectic in a text called the Mulamadhyamakakarikas ("Verses on the Authentic Middle Way") that criticizes all philosophical views and, as it were, steers a "middle path" between all views (including Buddhist views)--hence, the school's name, "Madhyamika," or the new "middle way"-- and concludes with the radical assertion of the emptiness (shunyata) and substancelessness (nih-svabhava) of all metaphysical constructs and, indeed, of all things. Second, the fourth century monk Vasubandhu, mentioned above as the author of the Abhidharmakosha and Bhåshya, becomes converted to Mahayana and helps in developing a new school of Buddhist reflection, which on one level accepts Någårjuna's radical notion of "emptiness" but then interprets "emptiness" in terms of a theory of "consciousness-only," a school known as Vijnanavada (the "Consciousness-Tradition") or Yogacara (the "Practice of Meditation" as consciousness-only). Third, Mahayana thought develops a sophisticated and technical logic and epistemology in the work of the monks Dignaga and Dharmakirti from the fifth through the seventh century. Through all of these centuries the various Mahayana schools are in polemical encounter with one another and with the various Hindu and Jain schools, and, of course, the institutional base for all of these developments is the Buddhist monastery.

Regarding the various Hindu schools, it is fair to say that the Vedanta is without doubt the most important and well-known of all the schools of Hindu philosophy, largely because it was destined to become the primary institutional vehicle for the survival of mainstream Hindu traditions through the long centuries of the Indo-Islamic period, as well as the catalyst for Neo-Hindu renewal during the Indo-Anglian or modern period. Interestingly enough, however, in the early centuries of the Common Era, when the technical schools of Hindu, Buddhist and Jain philosophizing were in their creative first phase, the Vedanta tradition was not especially notable. Badarayana's Brahmasutras were for the most part interpreted as a simple devotional theism not unlike the moderate theism of the Bhagavad-gita. This sort of theistic or religious Vedanta was clearly overshadowed by the Mimamsa and other realist schools as well as by the Samkhya and Yoga traditions, not to speak of the many Buddhist schools of philosophy, both Theravada as well as Mahayana (including the Sarvastivåains, Sautrantikas, Madhyamikans and Yogacarins).

By the sixth century, however, the picture begins to change with the more sophisticated Vedanta philosophizing of Gaudapada, author of the Gaudapadiya-karikas or Mandukyakarikas, who begins to provide a more rigorous philosophical basis for the old Upaniòadic speculations about the Self (atman), enriched on one level by the conceptualizations of Samkhya, Yoga and the other Hindu philosophical schools, and enriched on another level by some of the analytical philosophical methods of the Buddhist schools. Gaudapada's work in turn then becomes the basis for the great Vedanta philosopher, Shakara (traditional dates, 788 - 820, but more likely ca., 700), who develops the powerful position of Advaita Vedanta or "non-dual Vedanta," a philosophical view stressing that there is only one thing that truly exists, namely, the atman or Brahman, all multiplicity or plurality being ontologically suspect as Maya and epistemologically deficient by reason of ignorance (avidya). The Advaita Vedanta owes most of its conceptualization and technical terminology to the old Såëkhya philosophy and its analytical methodology and critical dialectic to the Buddhist thinkers, Vasubandhu and Nagarjuna. Shankara wrote elaborate commentaries on the main Upanishads, the Brahmasutras and the Bhagavad-gita, masterfully synthesizing in his monistic Advaita Vedånta position many of the older philosophical themes from both Hindu as well as Buddhist traditions.

Equally as significant as his philosophical achievement was his reworking or reforming of Hindu monastic and mendicant traditions. The evidence, unfortunately, is not as clear in this area, although tradition is unanimous in ascribing monastic reform and reorganization to the great àankara. Supposedly Shankara saw the Buddhists and their monastic institutions as great and dangerous rivals to Hindu spirituality and Hindu institutional life. He wanted, therefore, to reorganize the Hindu mendicant life on a firmer institutional base so that it could compete successfully with Buddhist traditions.

The monastic or mendicant life, of course, was known to the Hindu tradition as well as the older Indo-Brahmanical tradition, but it had traditionally been much less organized than Buddhist or Jain monastic life. "Wandering ascetics" (parivrajakas) were as old as the oldest Upanishads, and becoming a samyasin or "world renouncer" was as old as the system of ashrama-s or "stages of life." As mentioned earlier, this was frequently the institutional mechanism for the transmission of much religious and philosophical reflection in India down through the centuries, that is to say, the ascetic or world-renouncing spiritual leader (guru) who passes on his learning in a one-on-one relation with the student (shishya). Sometimes students would simply go to the home of the guru for a period of training. In other instances, small schools or hermitages (ashrama-s) would be formed focussed on the guru and his students. These could hardly be called "monasteries" (matha-s), but they were in many instances small mendicant communities. Throughout the epics and Puranas one can read about munis or sages who live apart in hermitages or ashrama-s. Moreover, it should be noted that even in the more organized Buddhist and Jain monastic environments, in many instances the old tradition of one-on-one learning was maintained. There was a meditation-master who worked individually with members of the community. Regarding organization or institutionalization, there is an old hierarchical ordering of mendicants or monastics in Hindu or Indo-Brahmanical contexts built around a fourfold structure: kuticakas (those ascetics who live near their families and are supported by them); bahudaka-s (those who gather near pilgrimage places for begging); hamsa-s (those who may stay for only one night in a given place); and paramahamsa-s (those who must continually roam from place to place).

àankara, presumably wanting something more carefully structured for Hindu monks, set about the task of founding what came to be known as the Dashanami (literally the "ten-named") Orders of Hindu monasticism, made up of four monastic centers in the four regions of the subcontinent: (l) the Shringeri Matha (or monastery) in the South, (2) Govardhana Matha in the East, (3) Sharada Matha in the West, and (4) Jyotir Matha in the North (or respectively, Shringeri in the State of Karnataka, Puri in the State of Orissa, Dvaraka in the State of Gujarat and Badrinath in the State of Uttar Pradesh). At the monastery in the South are to be found the Bharatâ, Puri and Sarasvati Orders. In the East are the Aranya and Vana Orders. In the West are the Tirtha and Ashrama Orders. And in the North are the Giri, Parvata and Sagara Orders. Altogether there are ten orders (hence the name, Dashanami), and at the head of each of the four Mathas in the different areas of the subcontinent is a Shankaracarya who is in a line of teachers (guru-parampara) going back to the original Shankara. The Dashanami system is to a large extent non-sectarian, that is to say, it is neither exclusively Vaishnava nor Shaiva, although overall it is closer to the latter than the former. Institutional rules are relatively unstructured, and there is very little coordination among the various matha-s (except during great pilgrimage processions like that of the modern Kumbha Mela when the various monks and mendicants follow a traditionally fixed order of march). Also, the Dashanami Orders are for the most part high caste in orientation with most members coming from the brahmana castes, and, as was mentioned earlier, their lay devotees and supporters are likewise from the high castes and are known as Smarta Hindus.

Shankara's Advaita Vedanta and the Dashanami Orders, however, are not the only forms of the Vedanta tradition or organized Hindu monasticism. There is also the tradition of Ramanuja (ca., l0l7 - ll37), the founder of Vishishtadvaita (the "the non-dualism of modified Brahman"), also known as the tradition of Shri Vaishnavism in the region of Tamil Nadu. In contrast to the strict and uncompromising non-dualism of Advaita, the "modified" non-dualism of Ramanuja allows for the reality of the individual soul and the world as dimensions or attributes of Brahman, and allows or encourages a rich devotionalism or bhakti together with a strong focus on "self-surrender" or prapatti. Some two centuries after the founder's death, the tradition broke into two main subdivisions, the so-called Vadagalai, a northern school which uses mainly Sanskrit sources and thinks that the devotee must assist God in the process of salvation (just as the young monkey must cling to the neck of its mother), and the Tengalai, a southern school which uses mainly Tamil sources and thinks that God needs no help in the process of salvation (just as the cat simply grasps the kitten by the nape of its neck).

The Shri Vaishnava monks belong to the Ramanuja-sampradaya or "monastic group," but there are other Vaishnava "monastic groups" as well, from the twelfth century onwards, including the Madhva (ca., ll97 - l276) sampradaya (those who follow a form of the dualist Vedanta of the teacher, Madhva), the Nimbarka (ca., twelfth century) sampradaya (those who follow the tradition of dvaita-advaita or "both duality and non-duality" Vedanta of the teacher, Nimbarka) and the Vallabha (ca., sixteenth century) sampradaya (those who follow the tradition of shuddhadvaita or "purified non-dualism" of the teacher, Vallabha, who equates Brahman, the Ultimate or Absolute, with Lord Krishna). There are numerous other Hindu monastic and mendicant orders, for example, the Shaivite Nath Yogi-s, the later Vaishnava Vairagis, et al., which will be mentioned later, but the Dashnami Orders and the various orders of the Vaishnavas are by far the most important in this Indic period.