One may think, ‘Because the collection is not anything apart from the collected parts, one identifies the result as the collection of parts. It is hence permissible to speak of a protector, a tamer and a judge.’
This cannot be, since the problems with that have already been explained. And also,
A chariot would be the presence of its parts.
As with a chariot, the same goes for the self.
From a sutra:
‘A self’, you say, O demon mind;
A fancy you thus entertain.
It’s void this heap, of factors formed.
There is no being present here.
As with a gathering of parts
One may speak of a chariot,
Contingent on the aggregates
Convention grants a sentient being.1
Thus,
‘Contingent on the aggregates,’ the sutra states.
The self is thus not just the aggregates combined. (6.135)
Something that is contingently imputed cannot be reduced to the assembly of its perceived parts, because a dependent labelling is taking place, just as when elements combine to form a product. Although things may be produced from the elements and receive labels such as blue and so forth, or eye and so forth, these two types of phenomena are not just the mere assembly of the elements. Similarly, although the self has the characteristic of being an imputation made in relation to the aggregates, that it is just the assembly of the aggregates does not suffice.
One might object, ‘That is inconclusive owing to things such as pots.’
No it isn’t, since one cannot prove that such things as pots are reducible to the gathering of form and so forth, and because of similar criticisms.2
Title
Chapter 1: Pramuditā
