Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c36.73

v2.c36.73

Accepting the opinion of the opponents that the self-same or a different, puggala does not pass from one existence to another, the Th. point out that they admit that some form of puggala referred to in the above-mentioned passages does pass from one existence to another. This puggala can then have no death, it once becomes a man and then a god and so forth, which is absurd.¹¹ In reply the Sam. point out that a sotāpanna-manussa is known to take rebirth as a sotāpanna-deva and question how can this sotāpanna-hood pass from one existence to another unless there exists some form of puggala to carry the qualities. In order to show the unsoundness of the statement, the Th. ask whether the passing puggala remains identical in every respect² and does not lose any of its qualities.³ The opponents first negative it on the ground that a man does not continue to be a man in the devaloka. But on second thought they affirm it in view of the fact that the carrier of certain qualities from one existence to another is a *puggala*, an *antarābhavapuggala*.¹ The Sam. take care to keep clear of the two extreme views: *tam jīvam tam sarīram* and *aññam jīvam aññam sarīram*. They affirm that the transformed *khandhas* and *puggala* and not the identical *khandhas* and *puggala* pass from one existence to another. The *khandhas* are, however, impermanent and constituted while the *puggala* is not so but it is not also permanent and unconstituted. Without *khandha*, *āyatana*, *dhātu*, *indriya* and *citta*, *puggala* cannot remain alone but for that reason, the colour and other qualities of the *khandha*, *āyatana*, etc. do not affect the *puggala*. Again the *puggala* is not a shadow (*chāyā*) of the *khandhas*.