________________ 106 Introduction Faced with this dilemma the Vaibhashika, regardless of the sutra, states that the term raganusaya should be taken as a karmadharaya compound. He resolves the sutra opposition by interpreting the term sanusaya as sanubandha,' i.e. together with its power of producing a new klesa. He also gives an alternative suggestion that the sutra identifies anusaya with prapti only figuratively; the Abhidharma is definitive when it says that raga (paryavasthana) is (identical with) anusaya. The Theravadins also identify pariyutthana with anusaya. Commenting on the sutra words 'sanusayo pahivati', 'Buddhaghosa observes that some people on the basis of this impression maintain that the samyojanas (here identical with pariyutthanas) are different from anusaya. They should be refuted, he says, by the simile of a person sleeping with his head covered. The person is not different from (his) head. Buddhaghosa takes note of an objection that if samyojanas and anusayas are identical then the Buddha's criticism of the heretic ascetics (for holding the view that an infant has no passions) is meaningless. 4 Buddhaghosa does not give any convincing answer to this criticism but asserts his position by repeating that the same passion is called samyojana because it binds, and is also called anusaya because it is not renounced (appahina).5 * The Kathavatthu records several controversies on the anusayas. The Andhakas held that the anusayas are different from pariutthana. The Mahasamghikas and the Sammitiyas maintained that the anusayas are indeterminate (abyakata), without good or bad roots (ahetuka) and therefore chitta-vippautta.? The arguments of these schools are the same as noted above that if the anusayas are akusala and chitta-samprayukta there will never be an occasson for the rise of kusala consciousness. 1 Adv. p. 221, n. 6. 2 Adv. p. 222. 3 Adv. p. 221, n. 3. 4 M. A. III, p. 145. 5 Ibid. 6 Kv. XIV, 5, (Adv. p. 308, n. 1). 7 Kv. X. 1. Adv. p. 223, n. 7).
