The spheres of sight, hearing, smell, taste, body-sensibility, femininity, masculinity, vitality, or whatever form there exists through karma having been wrought, whether it be in the spheres of visible forms, odours, tastes, or the tangible; the element of space, the fluid element, the integration or the subsistence of form, or bodily nutrimentthis is that form which is the issue of grasping.

[651] What is that form which is not the issue of grasping?

The sphere of sound, bodily and vocal intimation, lightness, plasticity and wieldiness of form, decay and impermanence of form, or whatever other form exists which is not due to karma having been wrought, whether it be in the sphere of visible forms, smells, tastes, or the tangible; the element of space or that of fluidity; the integration or the subsistence of form, or bodily nutriment-this is that form which is not the issue of grasping.

[655] What is that form which is both the issue of grasping and favourable to grasping (upādiņņ 'upă dăniyam)?

The spheres of the five senses, femininity, masculinity and vitality, or whatever other form exists through karma having been wrought, whether it be in the spheres of

issue of grasping, or what they have to do with it in any

way.

Concerning the two items above mentioned, how is it, asks the Cy. (337), 'that “decay and impermanence" are classed with respect to what is due, and what is not due to the performance of karma? They are classed with what is not the issue of grasping. That which has sprung from conditions other than karma is included under "not due to the performance of karma. . . ." And as these two forms arise neither from karma, nor from form-producing conditions other than karma, they are therefore not classified with reference to karma. How they are acquired will become evident later.'

For rupasantati read rupassa santati.

visible forms, odours, tastes or the tangible, in the elements of space or fluidity, in the integration or the subsistence of form or in bodily nutriment-this is that form which is both the issue of grasping and favourable to grasping.

[656] What is that form which is not the issue of grasping, but is favourable to grasping (anu pādiņņ' upādāniyam) ?1

The sphere of sounds, bodily and vocal intimation, the lightness, plasticity, wieldiness, decay and impermanence of form, or whatever other form exists which is not due to karma having been wrought, whether it be in the sphere of visible forms, smells, tastes, the tangible, in the element of space or of fluidity, in the integration, or the subsistence of form, or in bodily nutriment-this is that form which is not the issue of grasping but is favourable to grasping.

[657] What is that form which is visible?

The sphere of visible forms-this is that form which is visible.

[658] What is that form which is invisible?

The sphere of vision . . . and bodily nutriment—this is that form which is invisible.3

The privative prefixed to the first half of this dvandvacompound does not apply to the latter half. All form is upadaniyam-see § 595 and cf. Dh. S. § 1538. Hence to get, as we do, a positive answer would, if upadaniyam were to be taken negatively, be a very patent infringement of the law of contradiction. The distributed negative is given by anupādiņṇānupadaniyam as in § 992.

I have elided saddayatanam, and, on the next line, inserted apodhātu, as consistent with § 654. Cf. §§ 747, 750, and K.

3 The answer in § 658 recurs with its elided passage very often, but it is not easy to point out the foregoing answer of which it is an abbreviation. For §§ 653, 655 include visible form,' which is absurd.' And they do not include sound,' which is invisible. I suggest that

[659] What is that form which reacts and impinges1 (sappaṭigham) ?

The spheres of vision, hearing, smell, taste, body-sensibility; the spheres of visible forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles-this is that form which reacts and impinges.

[660] What is that form which does not react ΟΙ impinge?

Femininity... and bodily nutriment-this is that form which does not react or impinge.

[661] What is that form which is faculty (indriyam)? The faculties (or personal potentialities) of vision, hearing, smell, taste, body-sensibility, femininity, masculinity, vitality-this is that form which is faculty.

[662] What is that form which is not faculty?

The spheres of visible form . . . and bodily nutriment – this is that form which is not faculty."

$596 is referred to, with the implication that the sphere of visible form' must be omitted. All the other terms in § 596, if understood as strictly abstract sensibility or sensation, or as abstract ideas, are inaccessible to sight. Even in kabalinkaro aharo, it is only the vatthu, or embodiment of the concept of nutriment, that is visible. And similarly, whereas one's bodily gestures are visible, the 'intimation' given is a matter of inference, a mental construction.

1 Both terms have been applied in the detailed theory of sense given in § 597 et seq.

Keeping to § 596 as the norm for these abbreviated replies, we may assume that these two (§§ 659 and 660) divide out that answer between them. Impact and reaction, as here understood, belong exclusively to the sphere of sensation. The term patigho has an emotional and moral significance elsewhere in this work, and means repulsion, repugnance. See § 1060.

$596 would seem to be divided also and differently by the indriyam sections. What is na indriyam, not having duras, are thus the five kinds of sense-objects, intimation, space, the three modes of form, and the course

[663] What is that form which is Great Phenomenon (mahabhutam)?

The sphere of the tangible and the element of fluiditythis is that form which is Great Phenomenon.

[664] What is that form which is not Great Phenomenon?

The sphere of vision . . . and bodily nutriment-this is that form which is not Great Phenomenon.1

[665] What is that form which is intimation (viññatti)? Bodily and vocal intimation-this is that form which is intimation.

[666] What is that form which is not intimation?

The sphere of vision . . . and bodily nutriment—this is that form which is not intimation.

[667] What is that form which is sprung from thought (citta-samutthanam)3?

of the evolving rebirth of form as represented in abstract idea.

This pair of relatives coincides with the first pair of attributes taken inversely: forms underived and derived (PP. 172-97).

See above, § 636, 637. The abbreviated answer concerning the other relative will presumably be the entire list given in § 596, with the exception of the two modes of intimation.

3 C. below, §§ 1195, 1196, and above, § 636, note.

Here, after being silent over the last ten questions, the Cy. resumes its parable (p. 337), without, however, throwing much light on these to us obscure distinctions. This and the next two pairs of questions and answers refer to form of some kind as brought into relation with an intelligent agent. And the purest instance of this is those groups of phenomena which are brought into play when the agent is expressing himself. The expression or intimation itself, it says, does not spring directly from thought, but it is said nevertheless to have its source in thought because those phenomena (of gesture and speech) on which the intima

Bodily and vocal intimation, or whatever other form exists that is born of thought, caused by thought, has its source in thought, whether it be in the sphere of visible forms, sounds, odours, tastes or tangibles, in the spatial, or the fluid element, in the lightness, plasticity, wieldiness, integration or subsistence of form, or in bodily nutrimentthis is that form which is sprung from thought.

[668] What is that form which is not sprung from thought?

The sphere of the five senses, femininity, masculinity and vitality, the decay and the impermanence of form, or whatever other form exists that is not born of thought, not caused by thought, does not have its source in thought, whether it be in the sphere of visible forms, sounds, odours, tastes, or tangibles, in the spatial or fluid element, in the lightness, plasticity, wieldiness, integration or subsistence of form, or in bodily nutriment-this is that form which is not sprung from thought.

[669] What is that form which comes into being together with thought (citta-saha-bhū)?

[670] What is that form which does not come into being together with thought?

Answers as in the preceding pair of relatives.

[671] What is that form which is consecutive to thought (citt' anuparivatti)?

[672] What is that form which is not consecutive to thought ?

Answers as in the preceding pair of relatives.

tion depends are immediately prompted by thought, just as we say that old age and death are impermanence (in virtue of their forming part of the content of that idea). While there is thought, there is also expression of thought. But the concomitance stated in § 669 is not to be understood like that arising between thought and feeling and other mental processes. He is probably referring to the mental complex indicated above in § 1 and the like.