indeed refers to the Ajivikas, who may have existed as an influential sect in the 6th century. A.L. Basham notes that there are several such instances of Ajivikas being confused with other major sects: for example, the commentator of Achara-sara believes them to be Buddhist; and in Neelakesi, the Ajivika leader clarifies that his followers should not be mistaken for Digambaras. According to Basham, this suggests that the surviving Ajivikas adopted some of the beliefs and customs of the more popular faiths, and possibly merged with them. The Jain commentator Mallisena, who wrote Syadvada-manjari (1292 CE), suggests that the Ajivikas existed during his time; he may have been aware of the Ajivikas of southern India. At least 17 inscriptions from southern India suggest that a tax was imposed on Ajivikas or Acuvas (believed to be a Tamil form of Ajivikas) there. These inscriptions range from the time of the Pallava king Simhavarman II (c. 446 CE) to the 14th century. The last of these inscriptions are dated to 1346 CE (Shaka 1268), found at three different places around Kolar. E. Hultzsch and Rudolf Hoernlé theorized that the term Ajivika (Acuva) refers to Jains in this context, and some others - such as A. Chakravarti - doubt the equivalence of the terms "Ajivika" and "Acuva". However, Basham believes that these inscriptions indeed refer to the Ajivikas, and that they may have survived there until the 15th century, as suggested by the writings of Vaidyanatha Dikshita. The Ajivikas may have completely declined because of the growing Hindu, Buddhist and Jain influence. The 14th-century Sarva-Darshana-Sangraha, a compendium of the Indian philosophical systems, makes no mention of Ajivikas, which indicates the decline of their sect. Reliability of sources Ājīvikas competed with and debated the scholars of Buddhism, Jainism and Vedic's. The Ājīvika movement is primarily known from historical references left behind in Jain and Buddhist sources, that may therefore be hostile to it. It is unknown to what degree the available non-Ājīvika sources reflect the actual beliefs and practices of the Ājīvikas. Most of what is known about them was recorded in the literature of rival groups, modern scholars question the reliability of the secondary sources, and whether intentional distortions for dehumanization and criticism were introduced into the records. More recent work by scholars suggests that the Ājīvika were perhaps misrepresented by Jain and Buddhist sources. Paul Dundas states that the Jain and Buddhist