—  845  — 
Vatstputnya.  It  is  born  in  the  sense,  that  it  acquires  new  elements, 
casting  away  the  previous  ones),  just  as  by  the  acquirement  of  knowledge 
one  becomes  a  priest  or  a  grammarian,  by  (appropriate)  distinctions41  one  be- 
comes a  buddhist  monk  or  a  brahminical  wandering  ascetic,  and  by  a  change 
in  the  physical  condition  one  becomes  old  or  falls  ill.  (In  all  these  cases  new 
elements  are  produced  in  something  already  existing). 
Yasubcmdku.  Tins  argument  is  wrong!  It  is  condemned  in  Scripture. 
In  his  Sermon  about  the  «Beal  Void»42  Buddha  has  spoken  thus:  «0, 
Brethren!  actions  do  exist  and  also  their  consequences  (merit  and  de- 
merit), but  the  person  that  acts  does  not.  There  is  no  one  to  cast  away 
this  set  of  elements  and  no  one  to  assume  a  new  set  of  them43.  (There 
exists  no  Individual),  it  is  only  a  conventional  name  given  to  (a  set)  of 
elements»44.  In  the  «Discourse  with  Phälguna»45  it  is  likewise  declared:  юо.ь.7. 
«I  do  not  say,  о  Phalguna!  that  the  same  body  assumes  a  (new  set  of 
elements))).  Therefore  there  is  no  one  whatsoever  who  assumes  elements  or 
throws  them  off. 
But  first  of  all  I  should  like  to  know:  what  are  you  alluding  to,  when  100.  b.  8. 
you  refer  to  the  (assuming  of  new  elements  by)  the  priest,  (the  grammarian) 
etc.?  Is  it  their  personality?  No,  because  its  existence  is  not  proved.  Is  it 
their  mind  and  mental  phenomenal?  (No,  because  there  is  nothing  permanent 
in  them),  they  appear  anew  at  every  moment.  Is  it  their  body?  (No,  because) 
the  same  must  be  said  about  the  body. 
Further,  (your  examples  prove  the  opposite  of  what  they  are  ment  to 
prove.  You  maintain  namely  that  the  Self  and  the  elements  are  neither 
different,  nor  identical,  but)  just  as  knowledge  and  other  marks  (are  diffe- 
rent from  the  body) ,  in  like  manner  the  elements  must  be  different  from 
a  Self.  (If  you  admit)  that  the  bodies  of  the  old  and  the  sick  (are  different  states), 
of  the  same  body,  we  answer  that  the  old  and  the  sick  body  are  altogether 
new  bodies  (different  from  the  previous  ones.  To  deny  it  would  mean  to 
accept)  the  transformation  doctrine  of  the  Säm  kh  у  as  which  has  already 
been  dispensed  with.  Therefore  your  examples  are  not  fit  (to  prove  your  tenet 
that  the  Self  and  the  elements  are_  neither  different  nor  identical).  Again  if 
you  admit  the  elements,  but  not  the  Self,  to  be  produced  anew  (in  every  mo- 
ment), then  you  clearly  show  that  both  are  different  and  that  the  Self  is  per- 
manent. And  when  you  point  to  the  fact  that  there  are  five  sets  of  elements 
in  and  personal  life  and  only  one  Self,  do  you  not  maintain  that  the  Self  is  dif- 
ferent from  the  elements?! 46  (How  can  you  at  the  same  time  maintain  that  it 
is  not  different  and  not  permanent)? 
Извѣстія  P.A. H.  1919. 
