________________
( 195 )
being questioned resort to verbal jugglery and eelwriggling) on four grounds 89 The Commentary of the Dighanikaya presents its two alternative explanations. According to first, Amaravikkhepika are those who are confused by their endless beliefs and words. The second explanation gives meaning that like a fish named amara, the theory of Amaravikkhepikā runs hither and thither without arriving at a definite conclusion.90
The first of these schools is defined thus: "Herein a certain recluse or brahmin does not understand, as it really is, that this is good (kusalan ) or this is evil (akusalam). It occurs to him: I do not understand what is good or evil as it really is. Not understanding what is good or evil, as it really is, if I were to assert that this is good and this is evil, that will be due to my likes, desires, aversions or resentments. If it were due to my likes, desires, aversions, or resentments, it would be wrong. And if I were wrong, it would cause me worry ( vighuto) and worry would be a moral danger to me (antarayo ). Thus, through fear of lying ( muṣāvadabhaya), and the abhorrence of being lying, he does not assert anything to be good or evil and on questions being put to him on this or that matter he resorts to verbal jugglery and eel-wriggling, saying: I do not say so, I do not say this, I do not say otherwise, I do not say no, I deny the denials (I do not say, "no no" ).91
According to this school, it is impossible to achieve knowledge which is a hinderance to heavan or salvation (Saggassa c'eva maggassa ca antarayo ).92 The second and the third school of sceptics do not assert anything to be good or evil through fear of involvement (upadanabhaya) and a fear of interrogation in debate (anuyogabhayā).
The fourth school of Sceptics followed the philosophy of Sanjaya Belaṭṭhiputta who fails to give a definite answer to any metaphysical question put to him. His fourfold scheme or the five-fold formula of denial is based on the negative aspects which are as follows :98
