—  945 
Vasuhandhii.  This  is  a  verbal  explanation,  it  does  not  explain  the 
meaning. 
VaicmkcL  The  logicians  give  the  following  definition  of  an  agent: 
«what  is  endowed  with  a  free  will  is  an  agent».52  "We  see  f.  i.  that  in  common 
life  some  people  are  free  to  accomplish  some  aims,  as  f.  i.  we  see  that  De- 
vadatta  is  free  to  perform  his  ablutions,  to  eat,  to  walk  (whenever  he  likes). 
Vasubandhu.  But  who  is  this  Devadatta  you  give  us  as  an  example? 
If  you  understand  him  to  be  a  real  Self,  it  will  be  begging  the  question. 
But  if  you  refer  to  the  elements,  this  agent  is  not  free.  Actions  in  general 
are  of  three  kinds.  They  are  either  bodily  motions  or  speech  or  thoughts.  As 
regards  the  body  and  the  speech,  their  activity  is  going  on  under  the  influence 
of  the  foreign  will  of  thought.  But  thought  also,  in  directing  the  body  and  the 
speech,  is  operating  under  the  influence  of  the  foreign  will  of  its  own  cause-. 
Since  thought  itself  (in  its  own  activity)  is  in  a  similar  condition,  there  is 
nowhere  any  free  will.  Whatever  exists  is  living  under  the  foreign  will  of 
(inexorable)  conditions.  Neither  do  we  admit  the  Soul  to  be  an  independent 
cause,  therefore  it  cannot  be  proved  that  it  is  endowed  with  a  Free  Will. 
It  follows  that  such  an  agent  as  has  been  defined  by  the  logicians  is  abso- 
lutely not  to  be  found.  If  among  the  causes  producing  an  event  there  is  a 
principal  one,  we  may  call  it  the  agent  producing  this  event.  But  in  (your) 
Soul  we  do  not  see  the  slightest  productive  activity,  therefore  it  cannot  be 
admitted  as  an  agent  even  in  this  sense. 
(Vakesika.  And  how  are  actions  according  to  your  opinion  produced?) 
Vasubandhu,  A  remembrance  evokes  an  inclination,  from  which  a 
searching  state  of  mind  is  produced.  Then  comes  (the  feeling)  of  an  effort  and 
this  feeling  evokes  motive  energy.  The  motive  energy  produces  an  action. 
What  (on  earth)  has  a  Soul  to  do  in  all  that?! 
Again  there  is  no  (permanent)  Soul,  that  could  (really  enjoy)  the  іот.ъ.т. 
results  (of  former  actions). 
Vaicesika.  But  (there  may  be  something  else  with  respect  to  which  the 
Soul)  can  be  metaphorically  understood  to  be  the  en j oyer? 
Vasuhandlm.  What  is  it? 
Vaicesika.  Is  it  not  our  consciousness  (of  the  results  of  actions)? 
Vasubandhi.  No!  We  have  already  dispensed  with  the  theory,  that 
consciousness  is  a  product  of  the  Soul.  Therefore  the  Soul  can  have  no  power 
of  producing  a  knowledge  (of  the  results  of  actions). 
Vaigesika.  But  if  there  is  no  Soul,  how  is  it  to  be  explained,  that  there 
is  no  accumulation  of  merit  or  demerit  in  the  inanimate  world? 
Нзвѣстія  Г.  A.  H.  1919 
