—  846  — 
loi.  a.  4.        Vatsipiitrtya.  There  I  will  ask  you  in  my  turn.  There  are  four  primal 
constituents  of  matter,  but  matter  itself  is  regarded  as  something  simple. 
Nevertheless  is  it  not  taught  that  matter  is  not  different  from  its  constituents? 
Vasiibandhu.  This  is  a  mistaken  view  held  by  some  persons. 
Vatsipiitriya.  By  whom? 
VasiibandhtL  By  those  who  (like  Buddhadeva)  admit  the  existence  of 
the  primary  constituents  alone 47. 
[§  10.  Questions  supposed  to  have  beenleft  unsettled]. 
loi.  a.  6  Vatsipuiriya.  If  this  be  true,  if  an  individual  represents  exactly  the 
(2b— io).  e]ements  Ii  js  composed  of  and  nothing  else,  why  then  did  the  Lord  decline  to 
decide  the  question,  whether  the  cdiving  being»  is  identical  with  the  body, 
or  not? 
Vasubandlm.  Because  he  took  into  consideration  the  intention  of  the 
questioner.  The  latter  asked  about  the  existence  of  the  Soul  as  a  real  living 
unit,  controling  our  actions  from  within.  But  as  such  a  Soul  is  absolutely 
non  existing,  how  could  Buddha  have  decided,  whether  it  did  or  did  not 
differ  from  the  body.  Fancy  someone  asking:  are  the  hair  of  the  tortoise 
hard,  or  smooth?!  This  question  has  already  been  analysed  by  quite  ancient 
teachers.  (There  lived  once  an  Elder  of  great  learning  named  Nägasena 
and  a  powerful  King,  Milinda  by  name).  This  King  Milinda  came  to  the 
Elder  Nägasena  and  said:  «0  Venerable  One!  Very  loquatious  are  monks! 
If  you  would  answer  exactly  to  my  question,  I  have  a  mind  to  ask  you 
something)).  «Please,  do  ask!»  said  the  Elder.  The  King  asked:  «This  living 
being  what  is  it?  Is  it  the  same  as  the  body,  vor  is  the  living  being  one 
thing  and  the  body  an  other ?»  The  Elder  said:  «This  question  has  not  been 
answered!»  The  other  riposted:  «0  most  venerable  One!  did  you  not  condes- 
cend to  promise  at  the  outset  not  to  give  any  evasive  explanation?  Why 
then  are  you  telling  me  that  this  question  has  not  been  answered  (by  Bud- 
dha). These  words  are  by  no  means  (an  answer  to  my  question))).  The 
Elder  spoke:  «0  great  King!  Very  loquatious  are  Kings!  If  you  would  answer 
exactly  to  my  question,  I  also  have  a  mind  to  ask  you  something)).  «Please, 
ask!»  said  the  King.  The  Elder  asked:  «are  the  fruit  of  the  mango  tree  in 
your  palace  sour  or  are  they  sweet  ?»  «There  is  absolutely  no  mango  tree  in 
my  palace!»  was  the  answer.  The  Elder  riposted:  «0  great  King!  did  you 
not  condescend  to  promise  at  the  outset,  not  to  give  any  evasive  explanation? 
Whatfore  then  are  you  telling  me  that  there  is  no  mango  tree  in  your  palace? 
