is needed to prove it.The Buddha neither referred to

　　   the skandhas constituting  a being nor to the law of

　　   pa.ticcasamuppaada in order to deny the existence of

　　   a permanent ego-centric  entity.  Rather he made use

　　   of  the  notion  of  'I'  which  is taken  to be the

　　   tell-tale  sign of an individual  soul to refute the

　　   'S aa'svatavaada.  This approach  appears  to be all

　　   the more intriguing  as the Buddha  is preaching  to

　　   his  own  disciples, and  not  to  the  non-Buddhist

　　   ascetics.  And from the dialogue  between the Buddha

　　   and his disciples  it is obvious  that his disciples

　　   has not turned  into supporters  of this false view,

　　   but had remained faithful to his teachings. Moreover

　　   it would  be preposterous  to hold  that  the Buddha

　　   actually  supported  the  existence  of  a permanent

　　   individual  soul, although  he denied  its  identity

　　   with  the  five skandhas.  What, then, is the reason

　　   for  this  particular  mode  of  preaching?  We  can

　　   reasonably  surmise  that  he  was  instructing  his

　　   disciples  how  to meet  the challenges  of such  an

　　   erroneous  view.  The  inadvisability  of trying  to

　　   discard this false view by referring to the Buddhist

　　   doctrine is obvious, for the non-Buddhists cannot be

　　   expected  to have any faith in the teachings  of the

　　   Buddha. So the Buddha was teaching his disciples how

　　   such false doctrines could be successfully countered

　　   even while basing  one's argumants  on such articles

　　   of  faith  as  forming  an  integral   part  of  the

　　   philosophy  they were criticising.  He was trying to

　　   show how the logical  implications  of one aspect of

　　   this  false  doctrine  would  render  null  and void

　　   another aspect of the same doctrine.  In other words

　　   the Buddha was teaching his disciples  to expose the

　　   contradictions  inherent  in  the  doctrines  of the

　　   'Saa'svatavaadins  in  such  a  way  that  even  the

　　   upholdres  of this  philosophy  would  be forced  to

　　   admit  the  justification  of the criticism.  In the

　　   Anattaa-lakkhana-sutta  the point  which  the Buddha

　　   drives home is that the logical implications  of the

　　   notion of 'I'

　　　　　　　　　　　　  P.415

　　   which  were acceptable  to the protagonists  of this

　　   philosophy, would contradict  the other  part of the

　　   philosophy, viz. the identity of the individual soul