The author then argues: Where shall we consider the ego-soul, so called, to be residing in this body of flesh and bones? and what does it look like? We move our limbs, but the movement is due to the vital airs (_vâta_). We think, but consciousness is a manifestation of the great mind (_mahâcitta_). We cease to exist, but extinction belongs to the body (_kâya_). Now, take apart what we imagine to constitute our personal existence. The flesh is one thing, the blood is another, and so on with mentation (_bodha_) and vitality (_spanda_). The ear hears, the tongue tastes, the eye sees, the mind {168} thinks, but what and where is that which we call “ego”? Then comes the conclusion: “In reality, there is no such thing as the ego-soul, nor is there any mine and thine, nor imagination. All this is nothing but the manifestation of the universal soul which is the light of pure intelligence.”[77] _Nâgârjuna on the Soul._ In conclusion, let me quote some passage bearing on the subject from Nâgârjuna’s _Discourse on the Middle Path_ (chapter 9):[78] “Some say that there are seeing, hearing, feeling, etc., because there is something which exists even prior to those [manifestations]. For how could seeing, etc. come from that which does not exist? Therefore, it must be admitted that that being [i.e. soul] existed prior to those [manifestations]. “But [this hypothesis of the prior (_pûrva_) or independent existence of the soul is wrong, because] how could that being be known if it existed prior to seeing, feeling, etc.? If that being could exist without seeing, etc., the latter too could surely exist without that being. But how could a thing which could not be known by any sign exist before it is known? How could _this_ exist without _that_, and how could {169} _that_ exist without _this_? [Are not all things relative and conditioning one another?] “If that being called soul could not exist prior to all manifestations such as seeing, etc., how could it exist prior to each of them taken individually? “If it is the same soul that sees, hears, feels, etc., it must be assumed that the soul exists prior to each of these manifestations. This, however, is not warranted by facts. [Because in that case one must be able to hear with the eyes, see with the ears, as one soul is considered to direct all these diverse faculties at its will.] “If, on the other hand, the hearer is one, and the seer is another, the feeler must be still another. Then, there will be hearing, seeing, etc. simultaneously,--which leads to the assumption of a plurality of souls.[79] [This too is against experience.] “Further, the soul does not exist in the element (_bhûta_) on which seeing, hearing, feeling, etc. depend. [To use modern expression, the soul does not exist in the nerves which respond to the external stimuli.]