I have correctly translated wédagu, by the words living soul. But the king had used the same word before, in a discussion on sensations and perceptions, and there the priest asks, What is this wédagu? The king replied, 'that inward life, jíwo, which sees figure by the eye, hears sound by the ear, smells odour by the nose, tastes flavour by the tongue, touches objects with the body, and knows circumstances by the mano, consciousness:' thus explaining what we mean by the word soul, a living conscious being, who acts through the medium of the organs of sense. In further explanation he adds, even as I sit in this palace and view external objects through any window I please to look out of, so the wédagu looks through the window of the eye, of the nose, etc.' The priest denies the existence of such a wédagu or soul, and among other reasons states, that if what the king said were true, the wédagu, or inward soul, might hear with its nose and smell with its eyes. Whatever potency may be in the priest's reasoning, this is clear, by wédagu the king meant the soul, and that the priest denied that any such thing was received upon transmigration.

"The king enquires further, 'Is there any thing (or being, satto) which goes from this body to another body?' 'No, great king.' 'If, then, my Lord Nagasena, there be no departure from this body to another body, certainly there will be a deliverance from the consequence of sin.' This consequence the priest denies, explaining it by the Mango metaphor, and using the same words he had spoken before, viz. 'by this námarúpa actions are performed, good or bad, and by those actions another námarúpa commences existence.'

“But Budha denies the existence of a soul, or any thing concerning which a man may say, This is (1), myself; and (2) states that what by accommodation may be called the man is ever fluctuating, never at two given periods the same,

although not properly different. Of this peculiar doctrine of identity I will endeavour to give a brief explanation. The following is a close translation of part of a discourse in the Sanyutto division. The soul, Priests, is variously considered by some recluses and Bramins, but they all regard it as united with the five khandas or with one of the five. What are the five? The sensual and unlearned man considers (1) body to be the soul, or (2) that the soul possesses corporiety, or (3) that body emanates from the soul, or (4) that the soul resides in the body.* Or they regard (5) sensation to be the soul, or (6) that the soul possesses sensation, or (7) that sensation emanates from the soul, or (8) that the soul resides in the sensations. Or they regard (9) perception to be the soul, etc. Or they regard (13) thought to be the soul, etc. Or they regard (17) consciousness to be the soul, etc., (making 20 opinions). In consequence of these considerations they come to the conclusion, 'I am' (asmí). Now, priests, I am is the state of having the soul. The five organs, (indriyáni) namely, the organ of the eye, of the ear, of the tongue, and of the body are conceived (in the womb or otherwise.) There is consciousness (mano); there is dhammá (the three khandas of sensation, perception, and thought); there is the base of wisdom (wijjá dhátu.) The unlearned and sensual man being affected by the sensations resulting from ignorance, thinks I am'this is I.'-But concerning these the learned

* Thus explained in the Comment: he considers body to be the soul; i.e. Is there any body? that is I, is there any I, that is body; body and soul are not divers (adwayang, not two.) The soul possesses corporiety; i.e. taking the soul to be immaterial, he regards it as being body-possessing, as a tree is shadow-possessing. Body emanates from the soul; i.e. regarding the soul to be immaterial he thinks that body emanates from it, as odour emanates from a flower. That the soul resides in the body; i.e. taking the soul to be immaterial he regards it as residing in the body, as a jewel resides in a casket. I need not add, all these views are declared to be heterodox.

disciple of Budha being separated from ignorance and obtaining wisdom, does not think I am, or this is I.'

"The following formula is used by him repeatedly in connection with each of the five khandas, and twelve áyatanas, which two classifications embrace everything that is an integral part of the man, or corporeal. I shall only quote it in connection with rúpa, but it is used verbatim respecting the others; rupan bhikkhawé anitchang, yadanitchang tang dukkhang, yang dukkhang tadanattá, yadanattá tang nétang mama, nésohamasmi, naméso attá. Body, priests, is impermanent; is anything impermanent, that is sorrow (substantially and naturally so); is anything sorrow that is not the soul (not attá, the self); is anything not the self, that (i.e. that rúpa, or wédaná, etc., etc.) is not mine, I am not it, it is not my soul. The same is declared not only of the 10 corporeal ayatanas but also of manó, consciousness, or the principle of consciousness, dhammá, the combined sensations, perceptions, and reasonings, whether regarded as acts or powers. Of each and all of them he teaches, I am not this, this is not my soul, or (namé éso attá) this is not to me a soul.

66

In a discourse addressed to a person named Sóna he is, if possible, more definite: he says, If there be any organized form, sensation, perception, thought or consciousness, past, future, or present, internal or external, great or small, remote or proximate, of all it should be clearly and distinctly known, This is not mine, I am not it, it is not to me a Soul. The learned disciple of Budha understanding this, is weaned from attachment to body, sensation, perception, thought and consciousness."-The Ceylon Friend, vol. ii. No. 5.

INDEX.