The Eel-Wriggler Had a Name
The Eel-Wriggler’s name was Sañjaya Belaṭṭhiputta in Pali (Sañjaya Vairatiputra in Sanskrit). Sañjaya means “with victory,” and has the sense of being triumphant. It can also mean “co-victory,” as in a victory that is accomplished together with others, not just by oneself.
The historical context for Sañjaya encountering King Ajatasattu is described in the “Discourse on the Fruits of Recluse-ship.” Not my first choice for a title, but like Eel-Wriggler, it has gained currency. King Ajatasattu went around his kingdom asking different teachers about the fruits of the life of being a recluse (a renunciant). The King seemingly wanted to put his attention on his spiritual life after having imprisoned his father, King Bimbisara, and attempting to starve him to death, finally having him killed.
This is the psychological burden King Ajatasattu was carrying with him when he heard Sañjaya relate the most complex philosophical method of that age. It is truly dizzying to follow what Sañjaya tells King Ajatasattu, so it is not surprising that afterwards King Ajatasattu thought to himself, “This sage is the stupidest, most confusing. How could he, being asked directly about the visible fruit of the renunciant life, go on and on without answering?” After telling the Buddha about his experience with Sañjaya, King Ajatasattu confessed another passing thought about his judgment of Sañjaya, “How could someone like me think to disparage an ascetic or brahmin living in my kingdom?”
The Buddha remained silent about Sañjaya, not offering an opinion, ready to satisfy King Ajatasattu’s thirst to know the fruits of the life of a renunciant. After telling the King that one of the fruits of renouncing the world is not working for him, the Buddha went on to give a detailed version his teaching from the beginning to the end. It was reported that King Ajatasattu would have arrived at stream-entry if he had not murdered his father. The Buddha’s path to liberation was waiting for him in a future incarnation.
As far as Sañjaya was concerned, something irreversible happened in this discourse. He was defamed, forever given the attributes of the stupid, foolish, confusing brahmin sage. When his method was discussed in the “Eel-Wriggler” section of the “Discourse on the Net of Views,” his name was not even mentioned. His philosophical method is stated verbatim as belonging to a group of brahmin sages. The brahmin-sage who taught this method was merely identified as “dull and confused.”
I speculate that the Buddha had to follow King Ajatasattu’s lead in not disparaging another sage directly, by calling him stupid, so he left off Sañjaya’s name whenever quoting his method. This custom of not ruining a sage’s reputation by not attaching his name to a philosophy deemed confusing and foolish was used by the Buddhists to forget Sañjaya as a philosopher and turn him into a character instead. He became a character that the Buddhist tradition could never erase no matter how hard they tried to bury him and cordon off his method of inquiry. Those efforts eventually backfired and made him more visible than if they completely ignored him. For that was what I used to unbury the Eel-Wriggler. I initially followed the clues from his tarnished reputation.