________________
CHAPTER VII.
SECTION (F).
The Doctrine of Soul' according to Valsiputriyas.
COMMENTARY.
The Author proceeds to refute the doctrine of Pudgala' (Soul) set up by the Vulsipulriyas.
TEXT (336).
SOME PEOPLE WHO REGARD THEMSELVES AS 'Barddhas' DESCRIBE THE Soul BY THE NAME OF 'Pudgala', AND DECLARE IT TO BE NEITHER THE SAME AS, NOR DIFFERENT FROM THE
Skandhas, THOUGHT-PHASES).-- (336)
COMMENTARY.
Some people', -tho Vätsipuriyas.-Though these peoplo regard themselves as Saugalas', -sons of Sugata, Buddha-yet, under the pretended name of Pudgala', they postulate the 'Son!', which cannot be said to be either the same as', or different from', the thought-phases. The question arising as to how persons, who admit their being 'Sons' of the Blessed Buddha who has taught the doctirne of 'No-Soul', have wedded themselves to a false viow of 'Soul', -the Author answers it in a joking spirit, by the term who regard themselves as Bauddhas',
The character of the Soul' is held to be as follows:-(a) He who is the doer of the diverse good and bad deeds, (b) the enjoyer of the agreeable and disagreeable fruits of his deeds, and (c) who moves from the point of the abandonnent of the preceding Thought-phase to the point of the assuming of another Thought-phase, and is also the Experiencer,-is the Soul.-All this is held to be true (by the Vūtsiputriyas) of their Pudgala' also; the only difference is in regard to the name.-(336)
Question :-What is the reuson for regarding the Purgala as 'incapable of being spoken of' (either as the same as, or as different from the Thought. phases)
The answer is given in the following
