Neither Sandaka nor this location appear to be known elsewhere.

Evidently an excursion for sightseeing was popular. As well as simply enjoying nature, such trips give the mendicants a chance to check out possible places to stay for meditation.

This sentence is redundant as it stands. But wherever this idiom occurs elsewhere, it specifies that the person is a lay disciple (DN 25:3.5, MN 78:3.7, AN 10.93:2.7, AN 10.94:3.4). Perhaps the text here has been corrupted and originally specified that Ānanda was a monastic disciple.

Attributed to Ajita of the hair blanket at DN 2:23.2. | The denial of “mother and father” is usually interpreted as the denial of moral duty towards one’s parents. However, I think it is a doctrine of conception which denies that a child is created by the mother and father. Rather, the child is produced by the four elements, with parents as mere instigators and incubators.

This is a materialist analysis of the person. | The word kāya (“substance”) is central to Jainism. Ācārāṅgasūtra 8.1.11 speaks of the “substances” of earth, water, fire, and air as being imbued with life so one should avoid damaging them.

Attributed to Pūraṇa Kassapa at DN 2:17.2. | This is a denial of the doctrine of kamma. While his doctrine appears to be morally nihilistic, it seems unlikely this was Pūraṇa Kassapa’s full teaching. He may have subscribed to hard determinism, so that we have no choice in what we do. He may also have believed that we should keep moral rules as a social contract, but that this had no effect on the afterlife. | In such contexts, kar- means “punish, inflict” (MN 129:29.2).

This is the first part of the view attributed to the Bamboo-staffed Ascetic Gosāla at DN 2:20.2 and to Pūraṇa Kassapa at SN 22.60:2.2. | This denies the principle of causality and the efficacy of action. The fatalistic teachings of the Ājīvikas led to them becoming popular as prognosticators.

The otherwise parallel passage has a different phrasing at DN 2:20.5.

This combines the view attributed to Pakudha Kaccāyana (DN 2:26.2) with the second part of Gosāla’s view (DN 2:20.7). There are several inconsistencies in the presentation of these views in Pali, and still more when parallels are considered. These were closely-related teachers, who often practiced together for a time, and it is hardly surprising that they should share some views in common, or that their exact views have become confused.

Compare AN 8.16:1.3.

For explanations, see my note at DN 2:20.7.

This section deals with religious claims to truth, which sound confident but turn out to be unreliable. Anassāsika (“unreliable”) normally describes “conditions”, where it is a synonym of anicca and adhuva (AN 7.66:2.3, DN 17:2.16.4, SN 15.20:2.12, SN 22.96:4.14). For its opposite assāsa as “certainty” see MN 11:3.2 and MN 93:6.7.

Not only did the Buddha deny this kind of strong omniscience, he took pains to point out its absurdity.

As do some brahmins (MN 95:14.1).

Vikkhepa is “flip-flopping”. | Amarā is explained in the commentary as either “undying” or “eel-like”. However, amarā in the sense of “eel” is found only in the commentary to this term so is probably spurious.

Bhikkhu here seems improbable, yet it is attested in the manuscripts.

“(Those who are) emancipated” is niyyātāro, a unique occurrence of an agent noun from niyyāti, “to go out”. This was probably a technical term in Sandaka’s system.

The commentary takes mata as “dead” and the compound puttamatāya as genitive feminine, yielding the sense, “she whose sons are dead”, explaining that Sandaka thought, “Those Ājīvakas are surely dead; their mother is she whose sons are dead”. Perhaps, however, “she whose sons are dead” is an allusion to a child-killing yakkhinī such as Hārītī of Madhurā or Kālī in the commentary to Dhp 5, thus having the force, “sons of a she-devil”. Either way this is a curse or slur intruding into a passage whose intent is to highlight the Buddha’s fair-minded treatment of others. A near-identical phrase is used of brutal bandits at Ja 79:1.3. The compound is inverted at SN 5.3:2.1, but seems to have the same meaning.