reason for doing so is the justifiable  surmise that

　　   the attaa concept or concepts, the negation of which

　　   forms the core of buddhism, should find some mention

　　   in this descriptive type of scripture.  On the other

　　   hand we should carefully scrutinise  another type of

　　   material contained  in the Buddhist scripture  which

　　   is more  critical  and philosophical  in nature, and

　　   acquaints us with detailed argumengs justifying  the

　　   rejection of the attaa philosophy. Out of such study

　　   will also emerge the atta concept or concepts  which

　　   the Buddha  was rejecting.  The study  of these  two

　　   types of materials will enable us to form a complete

　　   idea  of the different  attaa  concepts  the  Buddha

　　   discarded  as false views.  It is only then we would

　　   be  in  a position  to  reliably  know  whether  the

　　   Upani.sadic  concept of Aatman-Brahman  was rejected

　　   or not.

　　　　  The  major   non-buddhist   concepts   of  attaa

　　   criticised  in the  Nikaayas  and  Aagamas  many  be

　　   broadly  divided  nito four main categories  dealing

　　   with  a) Satkaayad.r.s.ti,  b),  'Sa'svatavaada,  c)

　　   Ekaccassatavaada,  and  d)  ucchedavaada.   We  will

　　   discuss these heresies in the order given here.

　　　　　　　　　　　　  III

　　　　  a) Satkaayad.r.s.ti :  In the Sa^myutta  Nikaaya

　　   (22) we come across the following  description  of a

　　   false  view  which  later  came  to  be   known   as

　　   Satkaayad.r.s.ti: " Those recluses and Brahmanas who

　　   while seeing  in various  ways see the attaa (soul),

　　   they actually see the five aggregates  of attachment

　　   or  any  of them.  Which  five? In this  connection,

　　   monks, an uneducated  ordinary  person...  envisages

　　   matter  as a soul, or a soul  possessing  matter, or

　　   matter in  a  soul, or  a  soul  in  matter.  Or  he

　　   envisages,   feeling,   perception,  the   gormative

　　   forces, or consciousness  as a soul, possessed  by a

　　   soul, in a soul, or soul in them. Envisaging thus he

　　   gets  a thought  "I am"...Being  ignorant  he thinks

　　   this, or "I am this"  or "I shall  be" "I shall  not

　　   be" or I shall  be material  "or" I shall  be having

　　   perception "or" I shall be

　　   ────────────

　　   (22) Sa^myutta,   Vol.III   46f;   Taisho,   vol.II,

　　　　   p.11b1ff. A.K. Warder,Indian Buddhism, pp.123ff