explains 'anattam' as 'attaa-virahitam'.Another

　　　　   manuscript  which  he calls  'B' as well as the

　　　　   Nava-Nalanda  Ed.  Of the  Udaana  follow  this

　　　　   reading.  There  is no reason  why  the reading

　　　　   'ananttam' should not be accepted. On the other

　　　　   hand it is difficult to agree with Woodward who

　　　　   accepts  the reading  'anantam', as it is found

　　　　   only  in the  Nidaana.t.thakathaa of Dhammapaa-

　　　　   laacariya (Ed. F.L.Woodward, PTS, London, 1977,

　　　　   P.393)  .   Nidaana.t.thakathaa   explains   as

　　　　   follows:   'niccasvabhavattaa　　 anta-virahitam

　　　　   amaranadhammam anirodham amatam ti attho'.  'As

　　　　   nibbana  is permanent  by nature, it is without

　　　　   an  end, beyond  death  and  cessation;  it  is

　　　　   immortal'.  It is obvious  that this definition

　　　　   of  nibbaana  also  excludes  attaa.

　　　　   Actually  speaking  no scriptural  evidence  is

　　　　   needed  to prove  that  nibbaana  is devoid  of

　　　　   attaa.  The concept of attaa is such that it is

　　　　   automatically   excluded  from  the  domain  of

　　　　   nibbaana.

　　　　　　　　　　　　  P.397

　　   group  have unfaltering  faith in the Buddha  as the

　　   unique preacher of the True Law, and as such harbour

　　   no  weakness  for  the  honoured  traditions  of the

　　   Upani.sads.  the  view  of  Walpolo  Sri  Rahulo, an

　　   worthy   representative   of  this  group,  will  be

　　   presented  later.  On the other hand those  scholars

　　   who hold both the Buddha and the Upsani.sads in high

　　   esteem  do not subscribe  to this view.  Let us take

　　   note  of  the  opinion  of  Radhakrishnan  (14)  who

　　   belongs to this second group of scholars.  According

　　   to him the Buddha  clearly  tells  us what  the soul

　　   (attaa) is not, though he does not give us any clear

　　   account  of  what  it is.  It is, however, wrong  to

　　   think that there is no soul according to the Buddha.

　　   In support of his opinion Radhakrishnan  (15) refers

　　   to  the  dialogue  between  the  wondering   ascetic

　　   Vacchagotta  which,  according  to  him, shows  that