Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge c8.129.3

c8.129.3

His ahetuvāda- is evident from his language in that he denied a cause (*hetu*) for moral degeneration or salvation¹ but at the same time it may be noted that it was Pūrana who was called a ahetu-vādin in the Mahābodhi Jātaka (J. V., pp. 237, 246, cp. Basham, *op. cit.*, p. 18). Makkhali seems to have been a syncretist thinker whose doctrine was highly eclectic in character. He appears to have believed in *niyati*- as well as *svabhāva* (=*bhāva*) and *yadṛcchā* (=*saṅgati*) and possibly even in *parināma*. This is probably the reason why these central concepts of different schools are welded together in his doctrines. According to him all beings (*sabbe sattā* . . . *bhūtā* . . . *jīvā*) undergo development (*parināma*). This culminates in the course of time (*saṃsārasuddhi*) in final salvation to which all beings are destined under the impact of the factors of *niyati*, *bhāva* and *saṅgati* (*niyati-saṅgati-bhāva-pariṇatā*). It is probably this eclecticism which helped him to bring together the scattered forces of the Ājīvikas differing among themselves and earn their leadership.² It was probably this same eclecticism which made it difficult for others to specify exactly what his doctrine was. Hence he has been called (in addition to ahetuvādin) a Vainayikavādin (*v.* Basham, *op cit*, p. 176) and an Ajñānavādin (*v. supra*, 147) by Śīlāṅka, while the Mahābodhi Jātaka calls him a Theist (Issarakāranavādin, *v.* Basham, *op. cit*, p. 18).