Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c36.66

v2.c36.66

The Th. now assail their opponents by questioning on *lakkhaṇas* of the *puggala*, and ask whether the *puggala* is *sappaccaya* (caused) and *saṃkhata* (constituted) like *rūpa*, or is *appaccaya* (uncaused) and *asaṃkhata* (unconstituted) like *Nibbāna*. The Sam. deny both and ask how the Th. would explain the ‘*puggala*’ in the statement of Buddha: ‘*Atthi puggalo attahitāya paṭipanno ti.*’ Is the *puggala* referred to in this passage *sappaccaya*, *saṃkhata* or *appaccaya*, *asaṃkhata*? The Th. deny both, as in their opinion the term *puggala* is only a *sammutisacca*, and as such it is non-existing.