not an individual soul. The Aatman is the supreme
reality, the only Being that is beyond speech,
beyond the reach of mind and the notion of space.
And such an Aatman can by no strech of imagination
be equated with any of the skandhas. In short, the
sassato attaa of the Buddhist scriptures and the
Aatman of the Upanisads are two diametrically
opposing points of view.
So long we have discussed scriptural materials
which are more or less descriptive in nature. Now we
pay attention to a more critical type of
Aagama-Nikaaya passages which acquaint us with the
reasons for the rejection of different types of ataa
heresies, and thereby provide us with some extra
details regarding these heresies.
IV
We have seen that four kinds of relationship
between the attaa and the skandhas were recognised.
Out of these only one type of relationship viz. that
of identity between the attaa and the skandhas,
finds prominent mention in the Nikaayas and the
Aagamas. This appears to have been the dominant
heresy at the
P.409
time of the Buddha. Only in a few cases the early
buddhist canon takes note of other types of
relationship, viz. attaa has skandhaka or attaa is
not a particular type of skandhaka. Again the nature
and contents of such a criticism of attaa heresy
vary depending on the type of persons for whom it
was meant. The discourses which are held for the
benefit of the Buddhist monks are quite different
from those meant for non-Buddhist asceties.
With these preliminary remarks we will proceed
to arrange the relevant materials according to the
type of heresies criticised and the type of persons
addressed.
A: Criticism of heresies meant for the Buddhist
monks
i) Rejection of Satkaayad.r.s.ti: The sa^myutta
passage referred to above is a plain form of
instruction discarding the heresy of