Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge c8.82

c8.82

(178) This seems to be unclear. For it may be asked whether (1) there was at least one school of Sceptics, (2) Sañjaya was a Sceptic, and (3) if Sañjaya was a Sceptic, he was an Ājīvika. If (2) and (3) are denied there is a contradiction inasmuch as elsewhere Professor Basham ascribes the 'sceptical philosophy' outlined in the Sandaka Sutta to Sañjaya (*op. cit.*, p. 19). Moreover, he states (*v. infra*, 195) that 'the *Sandaka Sutta* seems to embrace all six of the heretical teachers ... in the category of Ājīvikas' (*op. cit.*, p. 96). From this it may be inferred that he considers 'agnosticism' or 'scepticism' (*v. op. cit.*, p. 19—both words are used indiscriminately) as part of the Ājīvika creed(s) in Barua's second sense of the term Ājīvika,¹ with which Basham agrees.² Nevertheless, at the beginning of his work he states the very opposite. Moreover, Professor Basham omits to discuss Śīlāṅka's statement to the effect that 'the Ājīvikas and others, who are followers of Gośāla's doctrines are a product of ajñānavāda' (*supra*, 147), whatever ajñānavāda may mean here.