wrongly their genuine spiritual experiences.
Consequently they came to believe in the false
notion of an eternal Mahaabrahmaa who is made of
mind. So the Buddha is here criticising
Ekaccasassatavaada on the basis of his more
extensive knowledge.
iv) Criticism of heresies in general: There is
no legend criticising the Ucchedavaada. This is
because the Ucchedavaada tradition most probably did
not record any legend justifying this philosophy.
The Ucchedavaada philosophy only recognised the
present life and denied the existence of any life
before birth and after death. So there was no scope
for the development of any such legend.
In the Brahmahaakasyttam however, we come across
a general criticism of all the false views noted in
this sutta.(42) Here the criticism is based on the
more extensive knowledge and higher knowledge of the
Buddha. The passage in question states that the
Buddha knows of all these false views and also knows
of into what sort of future existences fall those
who grasp at and become attached to such views.
Knowing this and knowing (other) higher things (ta~n
ca Tathaagato pajaanaati, tato ca uttariitaram
pajaanaati ) the Tathaagata does not get involved,
he knows about extinction; and having truly known
the rising and passing away of sensations
(vedanaanam samudaya~n ca atthamagama~n ca), their
taste, danger, their not being the refuge,
Tathaagata, due to the non-attachment, is free
(vimutto).
These are those other things, profound,
difficult, to understand.. not to be grasped at by
mere logic, which Tathaagata having himself realised
and seen face to face, has set forth."
The higher knowledge which is profound and
beyond logic is different from the knowledge of
future existences and past lives of the beings. The
phrase-"knowing this and knowing(other) higher
things"-clearly shows that two different types of
knowledge are referred to. The higher knowledge
refers to the
────────────
(42) Diigha Nikaaya, Vol.I, pp.16-17, 21-22, 24, 28,