on for this later movement. This theme of continuity is further emphasised through one of the samana traditions - Buddhism. In this the Buddha himself is referred to as muni ( silent one). However, one must not jump to simple generalisations and assume that the renouncer tradition evolved from roots in the muni culture. It must not be forgotten that the development of renunciation in the Upanisads ( which I will outline later) is closely related to the vedic ritual tradition, but also that the Jain and Buddhist movements (both sects of the renouncer tradition), appear to be moving away from this. It appears that no clear conclusion can be made. Therefore, one turns to examine the non-vedic influences, to try and decipher this mystery and find an answer to our question. There seems to be two ideas that contribute to this side of the argument. The first is that the renouncer traditions developed outside vedic ritualistic circles and gradually integrated into the vedic traditions. The second is illustrated by both Patrick Olivelle and Louis Dumont as a conflict of tradition between Brahma ritualist and the renouncer. Dumont points out that the Brahman is a man-in-the-world, he is not an individual (which is characteristic of the renouncer as explained previously) - he exists in a network of social relationships. On the other hand the renouncer is an individual outside society, an individual who is devoted to his own salvation and destiny, for them nothing is a ritual. With hindsight we can see that the renouncer tradition has aided in the development of Indian relgion, and it created values that later diffused to the Brahmanical householder tradition. I have already mentioned in passing a few of the different sects of the renouncer tradition, but I think that it is imperative to explain these further and see the differences in doctrine and practise and even the similarities in the religions that all evolved form the same ideal...
