[64] This view of the oneness of the Âlaya or Citta (mind) may not be acceptable to some Mahâyânists, particularly to those who advocate the Yogâcâra philosophy; but the present author is here trying to expound a more orthodox and more typical and therefore more widely-recognised doctrine of Mahâyânism, i.e., that of Açvaghoṣa. CHAPTER VII NOTES. [65] _Pudgala_ or _pudgalasamjña_ is sometimes used by Mahâyânists as a synonym of âtman. The Buddhist âtman in the sense of ego-substratum may be considered to correspond to the Vedantist Jîvâtman, which is used in contradistinction to Paramâtman, the supreme being or Brahma. [66] Mahâyâna Buddhists generally understand the essential characteristic of âtman to consist in freedom, and by freedom they mean eternality, absolute unity, and supreme authority. A being that is transitory is not free, as it is conditioned by other beings, and therefore it has no âtman. A being that is an aggregate of elemental matter or forms of energy is not absolute, for it is a state of mutual relationship, and therefore it has no âtman. Again, a being that has no authoritative command over itself and other beings, is not free, for it will be subjected to a power other than itself, and therefore it has no âtman. Now, take anything that we come across in this world of particulars; and does it not possess one or all of these three qualities: transitoriness, compositeness, and helplessness or dependence? Therefore, all concrete individual existences not excepting human beings have no âtman, have no ego, that is eternal, absolute, and supreme. [67] Tent-designer is a figurative term for the ego-soul. Following the prevalent error, the Buddha at first made an earnest search after the ego that was supposed to be snugly sitting behind our mental experiences, and the result was this utterance. [68] _The Dharmapada_, vs. 153-154. Tr. by A. J. Edmunds. [69] _Prakṛtivikṛtayas._ This is a technical term of Sâmkhya philosophy and means the modes of Prakrti, as evolved from it and as further evolving on. See Satis Chandra Banarji, _Samkhya-Philosophy_, p. XXXIII et seq. [70] The passages quoted here as well as one in the next paragraph are taken from Açvaghoṣa’s _Buddhacarita_. [71] _The Questions of King Milinda, Sacred Books of the East_, Vol. XXXV. [72] This reminds us of the passage quoted elsewhere from the _Katha-Upanishad_; cf. the footnote to it. [73] As cited elsewhere, Bodhi-Dharma of the Dhyâna sect, when questioned in a similar way, replied, “I do not know.” Walt Whitman echoes the same sentiment in the following lines: “A child said, what is the grass? fetching it to me with full hands; How could I answer the child? I do not know what it is, any more than he.”