1919.] Five heretical teachers on Jainism and Buddhism. 127 
of the same age as Kukuda Katyayana. The series of dates 
here suggested must be regarded as provisional and tentative. 
It must be established by corroborative evidence of the inter- 
connection of the doctrines of these six renowned sophists. 
It is of little importance whether one teacher was born or dead 
a few years earlier or later than another. What is of real 
importance to the historian is the proof that these teachers 
in spite of their divergences belonged to the same period o 
thought-development in India and prepared the way for the 
doctrine of Buddha. 
It may be of some interest to note that the Buddhist 
attitude towards Mahavira and his doctrine was not so hostile 
as in the case of his predecessors. Buddhaghosa, the celebrated 
the five earlier wandering teachers as Socrates stands in rela- 
tion to the Greek sophists. Leaving aside for the moment the 
question as to whether Mahavira can be thus separated from 
his sophistic predecessors. it is important to observe that the 
Buddhists distinguish these six teachers in a body from other 
wandering teachers of the time, as the Aiifatitthiya paribba- 
criterion by which we can distinguish two classes of paribbaja- 
as. It is in reference to the six schools of philosophy and 
doctrine and discipline. I do. How should you know about 
this doctrine and discipline? You have fallen into wrong views. 
It is I who am in the right.” ? We know next to nothing about 
the lives of these teachers. All that we know about them Is 
They were all bachelors as a rule and renounced all worldly 
ties, but they were not like the ascetics who were entirely out of 
touch with civic society. Asa matter of fact their headquarters 
were established generally in the vicinity of a royal capital 
sae 
1 ws hort account of the wandering teachers at the 
time ot the Bedabe.” ‘TASB. New Series, Vol. XIV, 1918, No. 7.) 
2 Majjhima Nikaya, p. 17. 
