Samannaphalasutta 0.n4

0.n4

The replies are no less interesting from the fact, pointed out by the king, that they are not to the point. Each of the six teachers goes off into a general statement of his theory instead of answering the question put. But as the works, if any, of all these teachers save one—Nigaṇṭha Nāta-putta have been irretrievably lost, the summary here given of their doctrines is of great importance as evidence of the sort of speculation they favoured. The six paragraphs are short and obscure, and this is just what we should expect. As is the case with the accounts given by early Catholic writers of opinions they held to be heretical, the versions of these six sets of belief are neither adequate nor clear. But a number of other references to these six theories are found, as pointed out in the notes, both in the Buddhist and in the Jain records. And it would be premature to discuss our six paragraphs until the whole of the available evidence is made accessible to scholars. It is noteworthy that in at least two of these answers some of the expressions used seem to be in a Prākrit differing in dialect from the Pāli of the Piṭakas. And these are not the only instances of the preservation in the Piṭakas of ancient dialectical varieties.