*  _  838  — 
so  mucli  is  meant,  when  we  are  speaking  of  a  human  being.  To  these  (five 
sets  of  elements)  different  names  are  being  given,  such  as  a  sentient  being, 
a  man,  Manu's  progeny,  a  son  of  Manu,  a  child,  an  Individual,  a  life,  a 
Soul.  If  with  respect  to  them  the  expression  is  used  «he  sees  this  object  with 
his  own  eyes»,it  is  false  imputation,  (there  being  in  reality  nobody  possessing 
eyes  of  his  own).  In  common  life  with  respect  to  them  such  expressions  are 
current  as:  «that  is  the  name  of  this  venerable  man,  he  belongs  to  such  a 
caste  and  such  a  family,  he  eats  such  food,  this  pleases  him,  he  has  reached 
such  an  age,  he  has  lived  so  many  years,  he  has  died  at  such  an  age».  These 
О  Brethren!  accordingly  are  mere  words,  mere  conventional  designations. 
«Expressions  are  they,  (but  not  truth)! 
Real  elements  have  no  duration, 
Vitality  makes  them  combine, 
In  mutually  dependent  apparitions». 
Moreover  Buddha  has  declared  that  one  must  hold  to  the  definite 
(direct,  technical)  meaning  of  his  words.  Therefore  this  their  meaning  must 
be  examined  over  and  over.  Thus,  when  it  is  said :  «0  Brahmins !  every  thing 
exists»,  (one  must  bear,  in  mind)  that  it  likewise  has  been  said,  «this  refers 
only  to  (the  elements  of  existence  classified  as)  the  twelve  «bases  of  Cogni- 
tion». Now  if  this  Individual  is  not  to  be  found  among  the  bases  of  cognition, 
it  is  (eo  ipso)  proved  that  it  does  not  exist  altogether.  If,  on  the  contrary,  it 
is  included  in  them,  then  it  is  not  admissible  to  maintain  that  the  Individual 
is  something  indefinite,  (neither  identical  nor  different  from  the  elements, 
since  the  elements  and  bases  are  something  definite).  Again  in  one  sermon 
according  to  the  (Vatsiputrlyas)  themselves,  there  is  a  passage  running 
thus:  «all  the  organs  of  sight  that  may  exist  and  all  the  visible  objects,  that 
may  exist  etc.  etc.»  —  follows  the  enumeration  of  all  the  twelve  bases  of 
cognition  —  «tbe  Buddha  has  declared  that  here  (in  the  twelve  bases)  they 
are  contained,  all  without  exception ;  and  he  declares  that  these  are  the  only 
elements  really  existing*.  Among  them  there  is  no  Individual.  Therefore  how 
can  the  Vatsiputrlyas  maintain  that  the  Individual  is  something  real? 
98.b.2(i5a-8)  (They  contradict  their  own  Scriptures!)  Again  in  the  Bimbisära-Sermon 
it  is  declared:  «0  Brethren !  (the  notion)  of  «myself»  and  of  «mine»  is  a  childish 
notion  of  simple  uneducated  people,  who  are  misled  by  current  expressions17.! 
There  is  no  Self,  nothing  mine,  nothing  except  the  separate  elements  of  the 
trouble  of  life  in  their  vanishing  apparitions»18.  And  the  holy  nun  Qilä19 — 
Mär  a  having  started  the  discussion20  —  gives  the  following  answer: 
