philosophico-religious system". Rahulo seems to
suggest in not so abmiguous term that even the
Brahman-Aatman concept of the Upani.sads stands
hereby negated.
It is clear that the concept of the Upani.sadic
Aatman acts as a powerful background in influencing
the formulations of both the above-mentioned views.
Conze, (21) on the other hand, propounds a different
theory which is not connected with the Upani.sadic
Aatman in any way. He is not sure what notions of an
aataman were deined by the Buddha, but he believes
that these notions are of two kinds, e.g.i) the
ideas implied in the use of 'I' and 'mine', and ii)
the philosophical opinion of the Saa^mkhya and
Vaisse.sika. The basic formula absence of a self is
confined to the five skandhas, and nothing is said
either way about its existence quite apart from
them. The Buddha never taught that the self is not,
only that it cannot be apprehended.
It is obvious that the solution of this knotty
problem hinges on the proper understanding of the
nature of attaa that was rejected by the Buddha. It
is really strange that none of the scholars who
suggested the equation of attaa either with the
Upani.sadic Brahman-Aatman or with some other
non-buddhist concepts ever tried to clearly
enunciate what this attaa is. Any such suggestion
without first defining the concept of attaa is bound
to be methodologically unscientific and
unconvincing.
To arrive at a more objective conclusion the
following approach may be suggested. On the one
hand we should study those materials from the
Nikaaya and
────────────
(19) Rahulo. What the buddha taught, p.51
(20) Ibid, p.55
(21) The Buddhist Thought in India, pp.38-39 (George
Allen & Unwin, London, 1962)
P.399
Aagama which are more or less descriptive in nature,
Such materials provide us with legends and other
informantions about the attaa philosophy dominant in
the region where the Buddha was preaching his
anattaa doctrine, and so engaged his attention. The