[635] What is that form which is vitality (jīvitindriyam)?

The persistence of these corporeal states, their subsistence, their going on, their being kept going on, their progress, continuance, preservation, life, life as facultythis is that form which is vitality.1

[636] What is that form which is bodily intimation (kāyaviññatti)?

That tension, that intentness, that state of making the body2 tense, in response to a thought, whether good, bad, or indeterminate, on the part of one who advances, or recedes, or fixes the gaze, or glances around, or retracts an arm, or stretches it forth-the intimation, the making known, the state of having made known-this is that form which constitutes bodily intimation.3

by a karma indifferently good. The latter, on the other hand, disappear by means of a karma indifferently bad, while the former are established by means of a very good karma. Thus, both disappear by badness and are acquired by goodness.'

Thus, our Commentator approximates more to Plato's position than to that of the typical religious celibate, finding woman not stronger to do evil, but rather the weaker in heaping up either good or evil.

What there is to say, has been said already in connexion with the faculty of vitality as related to incorporeal (formless) states' (Asl. 323. See § 19).

=

2 Kayo is said to sariram; possibly to distinguish it from kayo as used for 'body-sensibility,' or the tactile sense (Asl. 324), or again from sense-experience generally (p. 43, n. 3).

3 Kayaviññatti is analyzed in a somewhat rambling style by the Commentator. The gist of his remarks amounts, I gather, to the following: In any communication effected by bodily action-which includes communications from animals to men, and vice versa-that which is made known is one's condition (bhavo) at the time, one's self (sayam), and one's intention (adhippayo); in other words, the how, the who or what, and the what for. And this is wrought by a bodily suffusion (vipphandanena). He then classifies the kinds of thoughts which tend to

[637] What is that form which is intimation by language (vaciviññatti)?

That speech, voice, enunciation, utterance, noise, making noises, language as articulate speech, which expresses a thought whether good, bad, or indeterminate-this is called language. And that intimation, that making known, the state of having made known by language-this is that form which constitutes intimation by language.1

[638] What is that form which is the element of space (ākāsa-dhātu)?

That which is space and belongs to space, is sky and

' produce an intimation,' no others having this tendency. They are

The eight good thoughts relating to the sensuous universe (§§ 1-159), and

the thought concerning intuition (abhiññā cittam). The twelve bad thoughts (§§ 365-430).

The eight great kiriya-thoughts,

the two limited kiriya-thoughts,

the one kiriya-thought relating to the universe of form which has attained to intuition,

making eleven indeterminate thoughts.

Finally he refers us to his theory of Doors' (dvāra katha). See my Introduction. (Asl. 323-4.)

1 Vacīviññatti is dealt with verbatim as bodily intimation was, 'vocal noise' being substituted for bodily suffusion.' 'Making noises' is to be understood as making a noise in a variety of ways. Articulate speech' (lit., broken-up speech) is no mere jangle (bhango), but is vocal utterance so divided as to serve for communication (Asl. 325).

It is interesting to note in connexion with the problem. as to whether communication or registration of thought is the historically prior function of language, that Buddhaghosa, for all his aptness to draw distinctions, does not make any allusion here to intimation by language forming only one of the functions of speech.

Still more curious, as being more germane to this specific aspect of language, is it that he does not take into account the oral communication of the registered ideas of the race.

belongs to sky,1 is vacuum and belongs to vacuum, and is not in contact with the four Great Phenomena-this is that form which is the element of space.

[639] What is that form which is lightness of form (rupassa lahuta) 23

That lightness of form which is its capacity for changing easily, its freedom from sluggishness and inertia-this is that form which is lightness of form.

[640] What is that form which is plasticity of form?

1 Buddhaghosa's etymology (Asl. 325) derives akaso from 'unploughed'-what may not be ploughed, cut, or broken--which recalls Homer's ἀτρύγετος αἴθηρ and ἀτρυ γέτη θάλασσα as well as the ἀκάρπιστα πεδία of Euripides (Asl. 326). 'Sky' he connects with striking-agham, a-ghattaniyam-what is not strikable.

Akaso, he continues, is that which delimitates, or sets bounds to forms, environing them and making them manifest. Through it, in forms thus bounded, we get the notions-hence above, hence below, hence across.

2 Asamphuttham catuhi mahabhütehi. Although space is in this work treated of apart from the four elements, and does not, as a rule, count as a fifth element, in the Pitakas, yet, in the Maha Rahulovada Sutta (M. i. 423), when Gotama is discoursing to his son of the distribution of the elements in the composition of the human body, he co-ordinates ākās adhatu with the four other dhatus, to all appearance as though it should rank as a fifth element. In the older Upanishads it is usually coordinated with the four elements, though not, as such, in a closed list. In the Taittiriya Up., however, it appears as the one immediate derivative from the Atman; wind, fire, water, earth, plants, etc., proceeding, the first from ākāça, the rest, taken in order, from each other.

The word as amphuttham is paraphrased by nijjatakam (or nissaṭam), and may mean that space does not commingle with the four elements as they with each other. 'Belongs to' is, in the Pali, -gatam.

3 Cf. above, $$ 42-47, with this and the two following answers. Supremely well-dressed hide is given as an illustration of the plasticity of matter (Aɛl. 326).

That plasticity of form which is its softness, smoothness, non-rigidity-this is that form which is plasticity of form. [641] What is that form which is wieldiness of form?

That wieldiness of form which is its serviceableness, its workable condition-this is that form which is wieldiness of form.1

[642] What is that form which is the integration (u pacayo) of form?

That which is accumulation of form is the integration of form2-this is that form which is the integration of form. [643] What is that form which is the subsistence of form (rupassa santati)?

That which is integration of form is the subsistence of form. This is that form which is the subsistence of form. [644] What is that form which is the decay of form (rupassa jaratā)?

That decay of form which is ageing, decrepitude, hoariness, wrinkles, the shrinkage in length of days, the hypermaturity of faculties-this is that form which is the decay of form.3

1 Gold which is suddhanta (? sudhanta, well-blown) is given as typically 'wieldy' material (ibid.).

2 Buddhaghosa evidently reads so rupassa upacayo here (for yo), and in the next section sa rupassa (for ya) (Asl. 327). This is only adopted by the text in §§ 732, 733. K. reads so and să.

This and the following section formularize the coming into being of things. Integration is paraphrased (Asl. 327) as the cumulative effect of the spheres (ayatananam acayo) as they are reproduced over and over again. The import of the term is vaḍdhi, fulness of growth. Acayo, or nibbatti, is to upacayo or vaḍdhi as the welling up of water in a reservoir by a river's bank is to the brimming over of the water, while santati or pavatti (subsistence or persistence) is as the overflow and running of the water. All are expressions for the phenomenon of birth and growth (jatirupassa).

3 This is a stock formula, and occurs at M. i. 49; S. ii. 2, and 42. The Cy. points out (Asl. 328) that the three terms,

[645] What is that form which is the impermanence of form (rupassa aniccata)?

The destruction, disease, breaking-up, dissolution of form, the impermanence which is decline-this is that form which is the impermanence of form.1

[646] What is that form which is bodily (solid) nutriment (kabalinkaro āhāro)??

Boiled rice, sour gruel, flour, fish, flesh, milk, curds, butter, cheese, tila-oil, cane-syrup, or whatever else3 there is in whatever region that by living beings may be eaten, chewed, swallowed, digested into the juice by which living

'decrepitude,' etc., show the phenomena that must take place in the lapse of time; the last two show the inference that is to be drawn from them. For just as a flood or a forest fire can be traced by the appearance of the grass and trees in its track, so can we infer respecting our life and faculties by the appearance of teeth, hair and skin.

1 This and the preceding section formularize the waning and passing away of things. Birth-and-growth, decay and death are by the Commentator likened to three enemies of mankind, the first of whom leads him astray into a pit, the second of whom throws him down, the third of whom cuts off his head (Asl. 329).

2 Literally, morsel - made food. 'Bodily' (or solid) suffices to distinguish it from the three immaterial nutriments. See p. 30.

3 Under these come roots and fruits. Asl. 330.

On this section, where 'form' is considered under the aspect of sustaining growth, etc., the Commentator gives a brief dissertation where an adumbration of physiological truth is humorously illustrated. Whereas, he says (Asl. 330-332), food is here first set out in terms of its embodiment, in oja we have the evolved essence of it. Now whereas the former removes risk, the latter is a preservative. And the risk is this, that when no food is taken, the karma-born heat within feeds on the walls of the belly, making the owner cry out, 'I am hungry; give me something to eat!' and only setting his intestines free when it can get external food. The internal heat is likened to a shadow-demon who, having got the entry into a man's shadow, bites his head when hungry so that he cries out.