—  847  — 
This  is  by  no  means  (an  answer  to  my  question)!))  The  King  replied:  «But 
how  can  I  tell  you  something  about  the  taste,  sour  or  sweet,  of  the  fruit  of 
an  unexisting  mango  tree?»  «О  great  King!  said  the  Elder,  it  is  just  the 
same  with  this  living  being!  If  it  does  not  exist,  whatfore  shall  I  explain 
whether  it  does  or  does  not  differ  from  the  body?» 
Vatsiputnya.  And  why  did  not  the  Lord  declare  that  it  does  not  exist  ioi.b.7. 
at  all? 
Vasuhandhu.  Because  he  took  into  consideration  the  questioner's  state 
of  mind.  The  latter  could  have  understood  that  the  «living  being»  is  the  same 
as  the  continuity  of  the  elements  of  a  life  (and  that  this  continuity)  is  also 
denied.  He  thus  would  have  fallen  into  a  wrong  doctrine,  (the  doctrine  of 
Nihilism). 
{Vatsiputriya.  Why  then  did  not  Buddha  declare,  that  the  «living  being» 
is  a  conventional  name  for  a  set  of  constantly  changing  elements?) 
Vasuhandhu .  Because  his  interlocutor  was  not  capable  of  grasping  the 
theory  (of  elements),  since  he  had  no  knowledge  (of  the  manner,  in  which 
these  elements)  appear  in  combinations,  being  mutually  interdependent.  This 
(method  of  teaching  in  conformity  with  the  mental  capacity  of  the  auditory) 
can  be  clearly  seen  in  the  following  express  words  of  Buddha.  (After  having 
refused  an  answer  to  the  questions  of  the  wandering  ascetic  Vatsagotra 
about  the  existence  of  the  soul,  he  thus  adressed  Ananda):  «Would  it  not 
have  been  improper,  О  Ananda,  to  tell  that  there  is  a  Soul,  since  among 
all  elements  of  existence  there  is  none.  And  if  I  did  tell  him  that  it  does 
not  exist,  Vatsagotra  might  have  fallen  out  of  one  perplexity  into  a 
still  greater  one.  He  might  have  thought:  «I  had  a  Soul  precedently,  now  I 
have  lost  it!»  If  I  tell  that  the  Soul  exists,  О  Ananda,  there  is  the  danger 
of  falling  into  one  extremity  in  surmising  its  Eternity.  If  I  tell  that  it  does 
not  exist,  there  is  the  opposite  danger  of  falling  into  Nihilism !»  This  point 
has  been  explained  (by  Kumäraläbha)  thus:  «The  Buddha  was  pleased  102. a. 4 
to  construct  his  doctrine  concerning  the  elements  of  existence  (with  the  grea-  <4a~3)- 
test  caution),  like  a  tigress  who  holds  her  young  by  her  teeth,  (her  grasp  is 
not  too  tight  in  order  not  to  hurt  him,  nor  is  it  too  loose  in  order  not  to  let 
him  fall).  Buddha  saw7  the  wounds  produced  by  the  sharp  teeth  of  the  dog- 
matic (belief  in  Eternity)  on  the  one  hand,  and  by  the  downfall  of  (every 
responsibility  for  one's)  actions  on  the  other.  If  (humanity)  accepted  the 
idea  of  an  existing  Soul  it  lay  down  wounded  by  the  sharp  weapon  of  dogma- 
tism. But  if  it  did  cease  to  believe  in  the  existence  of  a  conditioned  Self,  then 
the  tender  child  of  its  moral  merit  would  perish».  The  same  author  goes  on 
Извѣстія  P.  A.  H.  1919. 
