XXII, 59) (50) while giving  a clear  exposition  of

　　   the anattaa doctrine,

　　   ────────────

　　   (47) Kindred  Sayings,  Vol.II,  p.16  (PTS, London,

　　　　   1982)

　　   (48) Majjhima, Vol.I, p.259.  It appears  that Saati

　　　　   misunderstood the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth.

　　　　   It is said  in the Sa^myutta  Nikaaya  (I, 122;

　　　　   II, 67, 103) that  it is only  when  vi~n~naana

　　　　   obtains a footing on something (aarammana) that

　　　　   there  is  the  possiblity  of the  birth  of a

　　　　   being, and  not otherwise, and the  moment  the

　　　　   vi~n~naana  ceases  (cuti), one is regarded  as

　　　　   dead. Also see, Nalinaksha dutt, Early Monastic

　　　　   Buddhism, Vol.I,P.255 (Calcutta, 1941).

　　   (49) Sa^myutta, Vol.II, pp.66-68 (PTS.London, 1960);

　　　　   Vinaya, Vol.I, p.13-14 (PTS,London, 1964)

　　　　　　　　　　　　  P.413

　　   adduces  reasons  for  the  denial  of attaa  in the

　　   following  manner: From (ruupa) is not soul (attaa).

　　   If it were, this form could not turn oppressive, and

　　   with regard to form it would be possible  to achieve

　　   the intention that "let my body be thus, let my body

　　   be  not  thus".   And  so  with  vedanaa,  sa~n~naa,

　　   sa^mkhaara, and vi~n~naana.  "What  do you think  is

　　   form  permanent  or impermenet?" "It is impermanent,

　　   Oh Lord".  "But  is the impermanent  ill (dukkha) or

　　   ease  (sukha)?"  "It is ill,  Oh Lord".  "But  is it

　　   fitting to consider that which is impermanent linked

　　   to suffering, doomed to reversal as 'this is mine, I

　　   am this, this  is my soul"'.  "No, indeed, Oh Lord".

　　   And so for vedanaa, sa~n~naa ect. Therefore whatever

　　   form there is, past or future, inner or outer, gorss

　　   or subtle, low or exalted, near  or far  away, would

　　   be seen by right wisdom as it really  is, i.e.  "all

　　   this form is not really  mine, I am not really this,

　　   this  is  not  my  soul  (attaa)." And  so  vedanaa,

　　   sa~n~naa etc. Seeing this the  well-disciplined holy

　　   disciple become disgusted with the skandhas."

　　　　  From a careful study of the passage quoted above

　　   the  concept  of the  attaa  rejected  here  clearly

　　   emerges.  The ruupa  and other  skandhas  cannot  be

　　   attaa  for  they  turn  oppressive  and  cannnot  be