The states which are associated with the four states aforenamed (the Ties), the latter themselves excepted; in other words, the four skandhas.

Which are the states that

[1149] (a) are disconnected with the Ties, but tend to become tied?

The states which are disconnected with the afore-named states, that is, good, bad and indeterminate states relating to the worlds of sense, of form, or of the formless, which are co-Intoxicant; in other words, the five skandhas.

[1150] (b) are disconnected with the Ties and do not tend to become tied?

The Paths that are the Unincluded and the Fruits of the Paths, and uncompounded element.

[CHAPTER VII.

The Group of the Floods (ogha-gocchakam).]

[1151] Which are the states that are Floods?

This and the group in the next chapter are thus indicated to be taken as read, in both the text and K. By the table of contents, it can be seen that the same system of catechizing is followed as in the Groups of the Fetters and the Ties. In S. v., p. 59, may be seen the number and kind of states' included under Floods or under Bonds, the contents of either group being identical with the four Asavas. These are the Flood or Bond of sensuality (kama), renewed existence (bhava), speculative opinion (ditthi) and ignorance (avijja). The Atthasalini only remarks that the Floods are states so called because they sink him for whom they exist into samsara, while the Bonds, like the Ties, chain him to the Circle (p. 49). Also that the adjectives, oghaniya and yoganiya, analogous to ganthaniya, stand for that which can be engulfed by Floods and enchained by Bonds respectively.

[CHAPTER VIII.

The Group of the Bonds (yoga-gocchakam).]

[1151a] Which are the states that are Bonds?

[CHAPTER IX.

The Group of the Hindrances (nivarana-gocchakam).]

[1152] Which are the states that are Hindrances?

The six Hindrances, to wit, the Hindrance of sensual desire, the Hindrance of ill will, the Hindrance of stolidity and torpor, the Hindrance of excitement and worry, the Hindrance of perplexity, the Hindrance of ignorance.1

In this connexion

[1153] What is the Hindrance of sensual desire?

Answer as for the Intoxicant of sensuality,' § 1097.2
[1154] What is the Hindrance of ill will?
Answer as for the Tie of ill will,' § 1137.

[1155] What is the Hindrance of stolidity and torpor ?
First distinguish between stolidity and torpor.3

In the Sutta Pitaka, the Hindrances form a category of five, ignorance (avijjā) being excluded. See the description in D. i. 71-74, and cf. D. i. 246; M. i. 60, 144, 181, 269, 294, etc.; A. iii. 63; S. v. 60, 94-98. This discrepancy is not noticed by Buddhaghosa. See also § 1112, The Hindrances are to be understood as states which muffle, enwrap or trammel thought. States, again, which are nivaraniya are to be understood analogously to those which are saññojaniya. Asl. 49.

etc.

2 Sensual thirst' is again omitted, as in the description of the corresponding Fetter, § 1114.

It is interesting to note that whereas the text calls thinam (stolidity) a morbid state of the cittam and middham a morbid state of the kayo, Buddhaghosa, in

In this connexion,

[1156] What is stolidity?

That which is indisposition, unwieldiness of intellect; adhering and cohering; clinging, cleaving to, stickiness; stolidity, that is, a stiffening, a rigidity of the intellect3— this is called stolidity.

[1157] What is torpor ?

That which is indisposition and unwieldiness of sense, a shrouding, enveloping,5 barricading within; torpor that his Cy. on the Digha Nikaya (Sum. 211), speaks of thinam as citta-gelaññam (sickness or affection of the mind), and of middham as cetasika gelaññam. The apparent inconsistency, however, will vanish if the predominantly psychological standpoint of the Dhamma Sangani be kept in mind. By kayo, as Buddhaghosa reminds us (Asl. 378; see above, p. 43, n. 3), is meant 'the three skandhas' of feeling, perception and syntheses, that is to say, the three through which we have subjective experience of bodily states objectively conceived. And cetasiko is the adjective corresponding to kayo taken in this sense (§ 1022). Hence stolidity is confined to the viññāṇa-skandha, which = cittam = (approximately) representative intellection, while torpor is a corresponding affection of mind on its presentative and emotional side.

Akalyata, equivalent to gilānabhavo, Asl. 377, where Maha Vibhanga, i. 62, is quoted.

2 See § 47.

3 The (stolid) mind cannot be maintained in any required attitude or deportment. It is as inert as a bat hanging to a tree, or as molasses cleaving to a stick, or as a lump of butter too stiff for spreading' (Asl., ibid.). 'Attached to' (linam) is paraphrased by avipphārikatāya patikutitam, lit., bent back without expansion, where the notion, as conceived by the Commentator, has something akin to katukañcukata or niggardliness. See § 1122, n. 2. 4 Middham, derived by the Cy. from med hati (med, be fat'); there is a cognate notion in our torpor,' cf. TéρTE, to be sated, and tarp.

5 Onaho, pariyonaho. See Mil. 300; D. i. 246. In the latter work, the a is short. In the Cy. (Asl. 378) the

See note on p. 312.