life,  is  mentioned.  Consciousness  (vijnana),  it  is  true,  occupies  a  central  po- 
sition, but  it  is  likewise  impermanent,  and  the  final  extinction  of  its  working 
is  likewise  aimed  at.  Some  of  the  elements  necessarily  follow  upon  one  another, 
some  are  necessarily  coexisting  i.  e.  appearing  always  simultaneously,  this 
process  constituting  their  «mutually  interdependeit  origination))  (pratltya- 
samutpäda)  or  life  considered  as  a  play  of  interdependent  elementary  forces. 
In  concluding  his  exposition  Vasubandhu  feels  himself  called  upon  to  de- 
vote, in  the  special  appendix  mentioned  above,  some  considerations  to  the 
negative  part  of  the  whole  system,  viz.  the  negation  of  Soul. 
Viewed  as  a  step  in  the  evolution  of  Indian  philosophical  thought 
Buddhism  was  probably  preceded  by  a  fully  developed  form  of  the  Sämkhya 
system  in  the  elaborate  thoroughly  consistent  shape  of  an  Indian  science 
(§ästra).  We  are  not  aware  of  any  cogent  argument  for  submitting  to  doubt 
the  tradition  according  to  which  Buddha  studied  systematical  philosophy 
under  the  guidance  of  two  celebrated  teachers  of  that  doctrine.  From  the 
same  traditional  source  we  gather  that  these  teachers  probally  had  already 
rejected  the  doctrine  of  the  three  primary  constituents  of  matter.  Buddha's 
denial  of  Soul  was  a  further  step  in  the  same  direction  towards  a  higher 
degree  of  consistency.  The  position  of  an  eternal  passive  Soul  alongside  with 
an  active  but  unconscious  intellect  (huddhi)  is  indeed  a  very  week  point  in  the 
Sämkhya  system,  a  point  which  invites  criticism.  The  one  eternal  matter  of  the 
Sämkhya  whose  manifestations  are  in  a  constant  process  of  change  (nitya- 
parinämi)  wras  converted  by  Buddha  into  separate  elements  which  appear 
into  life  like  momentary  flashings  without  being  backed  by  any  eternal  sub- 
stance. Both  doctrines  are  sometimes  called  radical  systems  (ekäntadarc^ana), 
because  the  one  adheres  to  the  doctrine  of  eternal  existence  only  (sarvam 
nityam),  while  the  other  maintains  universal  impermanence  (sarvam  anityam). 
It  is  out  of  place  here  to  go  into  a  more  detailed  comparison  of  both  systems. 
Their  close  affinity  has  not  escaped  the  attention  of  scholars.  What  I  should 
like  here  to  insist  upon  is  the  fact  that  a  close  connexion  may  be  expressed 
not  only  by  points  of  similarity,  but  also  by  opposition,  nay  by  protest. 
When  Buddha  calls  the  doctrine  of  an  eternal  Self  «a  doctrine  of  fools»  it  is 
clear  that  he  is  fighting  against  an  established  doctrine.  Whenever  in 
his  Sermons  he  comes  to  speak  about  Soullesness  or  Wrong  Personalism 
(satkäyadrsti)  a  sense  of  opposition  or  even  animosity  is  clearly  felt  in  his 
words.  This  doctrine  along  with  its  positive  counterpart  — -  the  separate  ele- 
ments that  are  active  in  life  and  whose  activity  must  gradualy  be  supressed 
till  Eternal  Repose  is  attained  —  is  the  central  point  of  the  whole  bulk  of 
