—  955  — 
bürden»,  tib.  phun-po  leii-pa  =  skandhadänasya  «assuining  the  groups,  the  Chinese  Ьаз  trsnä 
«craving»  (the  definition  of  which  (process)  has  been  given,  would  neither  be  comprised  in  the  ag- 
grates»,  i.  e.  it  would  follow  that  it  could  not  be  comprised  in  the  aggregates))  just  as  the  carrier 
(is  not).  But  this  we  deny.  Therefore  the  carrier  is  not  something  differing  from  the  aggregates, 
just  as  (the  fact)  of  assuming  them  is  not. 
34  Litt.  Bhäsya.,  f.  100.  a.  5 — 7:  The  carrier  has  been  taught  by  the  Sublime  Lord  for 
the  express  purpose  that  just  so  much  may  be  known:  beginning  with  «this  venerable  man 
having  such  a  name»  etc.  ending  with  «after  so  long  a  life  he  will  die  at  such  an  age»,  —  that 
he  may  not  be  conceived  in  a  different  manner,  as  eternal,  or  as  a  personality.  The  former  aggre- 
gates are  merely  exercising  a  pressure  upon  the  next  ones,  hence  they  are  called  the  burden 
and  the  carrier  of  the  burden. 
Yac.  comment,  p.  389.  Ъ.  6 — 390.  a.  3:  «The  carrier  (has  been  taught)  by  the  Sublime  Lord 
in  order  that  (so  much  may  be  known)»  etc.,  after  having  stated  all  this  at  length,  it  is  stated 
th**  «he  must  not  be  conceived  as  different)).  If  the  Individual  would  have  been  something  really 
existing,  then  the  Sutra  would  have  declared  simply  this:  «who  is  the  carrier?  We  must  answer 
it  is  the  Individual)).  But  the  analysis  (of  this  notion)  beginning  with  the  words  «this  venerable 
man  named  so  and  so»  and  ending  with  «after  so  long  a  life  he  will  die  at  such  an  age»  would 
not  have  been  given.  And  besides  the  gist  of  declaring  these  details  is  to  make  it  known  that  the 
Individual  is  a  conventional  entity.  It  means :  he,  namely  (the  Individual),  must  be  conceived  аз  a 
conventional  existence,  the  Individual  must  not  be  conceived  as  something  different,  as  a  real 
untity,  as  eternal,  or  as  something  it  is  impossible  ,to  give  a  definition  of.  «The  former  aggre- 
gates etc.»  means:  among  the  (aggregates)  there  are  some  which  do  oppress  and  are  the  cause 
of  suffering,  they  are  styled  «bürden»,  the  next  following  ones,  those  who  are  oppressed,  are 
styled  «the  carrier  of  the  bürden». 
The  same  passage  as  translated  by  JSiuen  Thsang : 
Vatsipmnya.  (la — 4).  If  there  are  only  the  5  groups  of  elements,  which  conventionally 
might  be  called  «I»,  then  for  what  reason  has  the  Lord  said  such  (sentences  as  follow):  «I  shall 
now  speak  to  you  about  the  burden,  about  the  taking  up  and  the  laying  down  of  the  burden,  and 
about  the  carrier  of  the  burden. 
Vasubandhu.  Why  should  Buddha  here  not  have  said  so  ? 
Vatsiputriya.  Because  one  cannot  call  the  burden  the  carrier  of  the  burden  (i.  e.  the 
carrier  cannot  be  contained  in  the  5  groups).  And  why?  Because  that  has  never  been  seen  before. 
Vasubandhu.  In  that  case  you  likewise  should  not  speak  about  some  indefinable  (fifth 
category  of  elements),  because  that  too  has  never  been  seen  before.  Likewise  (you  could  object) 
that,  just  as  the  carrier,  the  taking  up  of  the  burden  cannot  be  contained  in  the  groups,  since  it 
never  has  been  seen,  (that  a  burden  is  taking  up  itself).  [But  in  the  Sutra  by  «takmg  up»  the 
trsnä  is  meant,  therefore  it  is  contained  in  the  groups.  The  same  applies  to  the  carrier,  i.  e. 
to  the  groups  (of  the  present  moment)  the  term  pudgala  («that  which  takes  different  gati's») 
is  conventionally  applied.  But  Buddha  was  fearing  that  somebody  might  say:  this  pudgala  is  some 
indefinable,  everlasting,  true  reality.]  Therefore  in  the  (same)  sutra  Buddha  after  these  words 
gives  himself  an  explanation,  saying:  «only  following  the  way  of  common  speach  one  says  that 
this  venerable  man  has  such  and  such  a  name  etc.,  as  cited  before  in  the  phrase  of  the  «sütra 
about  the  man»  (Samyuktäg.  13.  4).  (He  is  saying  so)  to  make  it  clear  that  this  pudgala  can  be 
said  to  be  non-eternal,  not  having  any  essence  of  true  reality  i.  e.  the  five  groups  are  themselves 
troubling  (P.  destroying)  each  other  and  are  therefore  called  burden.  The  previous  moments  which 
are  drawing  (Comm.  the  previous  cause  bears  the  result)  the  posterior  ones  are  therefore 
called  «carrier».  Therefore  there  is  no  real  pudgala.» 
In  H.'s  conception  the  carrier  of  the  parable  represents  the  previous  moments,  and  the 
burden  the  posterior  ones.  But  Yac  ,  on  the  contrary,  explains  the  former  ones  as  the  burden,  and 
the  following  ones  as  the  carrier  of  the  burden. 
35  sems-can  skye-ba-pa  =  upapldukah  sattvah.  Tag.  explains:  upapädukatväd  ity  upapa- 
dena  sädhukäritväd  ity  arthah,  this  is  translated  into  tib.  thus:  sems-can  skye-ba-la  (for  skye-ba- 
Извѣетія  P.  A.  H.  ІЭ1Э.  64 
