nothing  new, is  steadfast  as  a mountain-peak, as

　　   pillar firmly fixed; and these living beings move on

　　   and  on,  transmigrate,  fall  from  one  state   of

　　   existence, rise up in another, but (the soul) exists

　　   for eternity."

　　　　  For  our  purpose  it is, however, important  to

　　   know  how  the  buddhists   would  understand   this

　　   philosophy.　　 From　　 our　　 discussion　　 of   the

　　   Satkaayad.r.s.ti  it is clear that according  to the

　　   Buddhist's interpretation of the false view the soul

　　   must be either identical  with or closely related to

　　   the  Skandhas.   This  relation  is  such  that  the

　　   existence  of a soul  apart  from  the  skandhas  is

　　   unthinkable.  The changes which the skandhas undergo

　　   even during one's lifetime are obvious. Moreover the

　　   acceptance  of  the  repeated  deaths  and  rebirths

　　   shows that the skandhas do not remain unchanged.  In

　　   short, according to the buddhist interpretation, the

　　   'Saa'svatavaadins  admitted the changeable nature of

　　   the  skandhas,  accepted   the  close   relationship

　　   existing  between the soul and the skandhas, and yet

　　   held the soul  to be eternal  (sassato).  This  also

　　   seems to be the opinion of Buddhaghosa (35) as

　　   ────────────

　　   (33) Diigha Nikaya, Vol I, see, p.34; also see, p.12

　　   (34) See, p.10 ff.

　　　　　　　　　　　　  P.405

　　   expressed   in  the  Suma^ngalavilaasinii,  But,  as

　　   already   shown,  Buddhist   presentation   of   the

　　   eternalism   is  not  the  same   as  the   original

　　   philosiophy　　 of   the　　 'Saa'svatavaadins.　　 The

　　   'Saa'svatavaadins  themselves regarded 'attaa' to be

　　   independent of body and mind, i.e.  of the skandhas,

　　   to use the Buddhist  terminology.  This seems  to be

　　   reason why the 'Saa'svatavaadins  themselves did not

　　   relate the soul to any of the skandhas  in the stock

　　   description  of  their  own  philosophy.   Even  the

　　   logicians  and  thinkers  (takkii, viima^nsii)  (36)

　　   among   them   have   nothing   to  say  about   the

　　   relationship  existing  between  the  soul  and  the

　　   skandhas.

　　　　  Whatever   may   be  the   case,  it  is  of  no

　　   consequence  for our present study that the Buddhist