and nirattaa respectively.  The Buddhists were aware

　　   of this fact and gave expression to it in

　　　　　　　　　　　　  P.421

　　   canonical  and non-canonical  texts.  We will cite a

　　   few quotations from the Buddhist texts in support of

　　   our view. In the Du.t.tha.t.thakasutta (No.8) of the

　　   Suttanipaata we read the following verse; (55)

　　　　  "attam  nirattam  na hi tassa a.t.thi  adhosi se

　　　　  di.t.thimidha sabbaa"

　　　　  Here  the  belief  in  attaa  and  nirattaa  are

　　   counted  among  the false views  (di.t.thi) which  a

　　   follower  of the  Buddha  has given  up.  Again  the

　　   following  two verses  from  Lalitavistara  (56) and

　　   Madhyamikakaarikaa   (57)   while   confirming   the

　　   Buddhist  rejection  of both attaa and nirattaa give

　　   some extra information regarding these heresies:

　　　　  i) astinaastivinirumktamaatmyanairaatmyavarjitam

　　　　  prak.rtyaa jaatinirde'sam dharmacakram ihocyate.

　　　　  ii) astiiti  'saa'svatagraaho  nastiityucchedaa-

　　　　  dar'sanam   tasmaadastivanaastitve   naa'sriyeta

　　　　  vicak.sana.

　　　　  From the verses quoted above it is evident  that

　　   the existence of an eternal indireidual soul (attaa0

　　   was　　 preached　　 in   the   philosophy　　 of   the

　　   'Saa'svatavaada  and term  'asti'  in its vocabulary

　　   did  not  convey  the  ordinary   meaning   of  mere

　　   existence  but acquired the special sense of eternal

　　   existence.  On the other hand the Ucchedavaada which

　　   preached  the philosophy  of nirattaa  (nairaatmya),

　　   coined  the  term'nasti'   to  signify  simultaneous

　　   annihilation  of the temporarily  existing attaa and

　　   the physical  body.  It is in these  special  senses

　　   that  the Pali Buddhist  texts  use these  two terms

　　   'asti'  and 'nasti'  while  recording  the dialogues

　　   between  the Buddha  and the non-Buddhist  ascetics.

　　   Any  lack  of awareness  of the special  imports  of

　　   'asti'  and  'naasti'  may result  in drawing  wrong

　　   conclusions from such dialogues.

　　　　  As the ego-centricity and absolute dependence on

　　   the Skandakas-the two

　　   ────────────

　　   (55) PTS,  London,  1913;  also  see, The  Group  of

　　　　   Discourses, II(PTS, London, 1992) p.304