________________
98
Buddhist Philosophy
[CH.
whether they are faulty or not and afterwards offers the food of various excellent tastes to the king, and the king, being lord, expert, and master, eats whatever he likes, even so the mere tasting of the food by the cook is like the partial enjoyment of the object by the remaining states, and as the cook tastes a portion of the food, so the remaining states enjoy a portion of the object, and as the king, being lord, expert and master, eats the meal according to his pleasure so feeling being lord expert, and master, enjoys the taste of the object and therefore it is said that enjoyment or experience is its function?"
The special feature of saññā is said to be the recognizing (paccabliñña) by means of a sign (abhiññānena). According to another explanation, a recognition takes place by the inclusion of the totality (of aspects)-sabbasangahikavasena. The work of volition (cetanā) is said to be coordination or binding together (abhisandahana). “Volition is exceedingly energetic and makes a double effort, a double exertion. Hence the Ancients said Volition is like the nature of a landowner, a cultivator who taking fifty-five strong men, went down to the fields to reap. He was exceedingly energetic and exceedingly strenuous; he doubled his strength and said "Take your sickles” and so forth, pointed out the portion to be reaped, offered them drink, food, scent, flowers, etc., and took an equal share of the work.' The simile should be thus applied: volition is like the cultivator, the fifty-five moral states which arise as factors of consciousness are like the fifty-five strong men; like the time of doubling strength, doubling effort by the cultivator is the doubled strength, doubled effort of volition as regards activity in moral and immoral acts?." It seems that probably the active side operating in sankhāra was separately designated as cetanā (volition).
"When one says 'I,' what he does is that he refers either to all the khandhas combined or any one of them and deludes himself that that was 'I.' Just as one could not say that the fragrance of the lotus belonged to the petals, the colour or the pollen, so one could not say that the rūpa was 'I' or that the vedanā was 'I' or any of the other khandhas was 'I.' There is nowhere to be found in the khandhas 'I am!"
1 Althasilini, pp. 109-110; translation, pp. 145-146. ? Ibid. p. In; translation, pp. 147-148. 3 Samyutla Nikiya, III. 130.
