Early Monastic Buddhism v1.c9.s2.7

v1.c9.s2.7

Now, it may be contended that T. is not to be spoken of as identical with, or different from, the *skandhas*; he is known only on account (*upādāya*) of the *skandhas*.¹ Nāgārjuna replies that the position also is not tenable, the reason being that it implies the existence of T. as prior to, and distinct from, *skandhas*; and that T. had the *skandhas* later on, just as we say, Devadatta exists and he later on acquires wealth. From all considerations, the conclusion that is arrived at is that T. cannot have an existence before he has taken up the *skandhas*, i.e., he cannot exist uncaused (*anupādāya*), for that would again give rise to the fallacy that things can originate without cause. That which does not exist at all,² how can it take up something else,³ in this case, the *skandhas* (*upādānas*).