Dhamma-Sangani - FORM - Categories of Form under Fivefold to Elevenfold Aspects

A BUDDHIST MANUAL
Psychological Ethics,
FROM THE PALI
OF THE
DHAMMA-SANGANI

Translated by CAROLINE A. F. RHYS DAVIDS, M.A.

[Chapter v.
The Category of Form under a Fivefold Aspect (pancavid-
hena rupasangaho).]
[962-966] What is that form which is
(i.) earth-element (pathavi-dhatu)?^
That which is hard, rough, hardness, rigidity, whether it
be of the self,^ or external, or the issue of grasping,^ or not
the issue of grasping.
^ The essential mark (lakkhanam) of the earth-element
is given as 'hardness '
(kakkhalattam, AsL, 332). This
may very likely have conveyed to Buddhists what we under-
stand by *
solid,' when the implication is density as opposed
to what is liquid or gaseous, and it was tempting to use
solidity in preference to hardness. But the former term is
ambiguous, for it may mean the opposite of plane surface,
and kakkhalattam cannot be strained to mean that.
Again, the opposite of the latter term is neither liquid nor
flat, but £oft or pliant. Further, compare its use in de-
scribing gravel or stone-food in Mil. 67, where we should
certainly use *hard.' The other characteristics of patha-
vidhatu are said to be establishing a fulcrum or ttov
o-Tw, patitthanam), and accepting (sampaticchanam),
the import of the latter term not being very clear.
2 Ajjhattam. See § 673, note, and § 742, note.
^ In the Commentary, p. 338, where upadinnam is
said to be na kammasamutthanam eva, the negative
particle must have crept in by some error, that which is
upadinnam being essentially due to karma. See Dh. S.,
§§ 653,* 654; AsL, pp. 46, 337 (§ 664), etc. Generally,
says Buddhaghosa, the bony framework of the body (the
most solid part of one's self, sariratthakam) is here


(ii.) fluid-element (apodhatu)?
That which is fluid, belonging to fluid, viscid, belonging
to what is viscid, the cohesiveness of form, whether it be
of the self, or external, or the issue of grasping or not the
issue of grasping.^
(iii.) flame-element (tejodhatu) 2^
That which is flame, belonging to flame, heat, belonging
to heat, hot, belonging to what is hot, whether it be of the
self, or, etc, [continue as in preceding].
(iv.) air-element (vayodhatu)?
That which is air, belongs to air [the fluctuation], the
inflation,^ of form, whether it be of the self, or, etc.
referred to. For this, while it may, or may not be upa-
dinnam, is said to be wholly the issue of grasping when
signifying that which is taken, laid hold of, infected.
^ See § 652, note. The essential characteristics of
apodhatu are said to be flowing (paggharanam), ex-
pansion or spreading (bruhanam, cj. p. 12, note 3,
Mil. 317) and congress (sangaho, Asl., ibid.). The last
term may possibly be an attempt to express what we term,
loosely enough, *
water always finding its own level.' The
internal or personal apo is distributed as bile, phlegm,
pus, blood, sweat, serum, tears, and so on. M. i. 42.
^ Never a ggi or fire, in the Buddhist books. The essential
characteristics are said to be (Asl., ibid.) heat, ripening,
maturing (paripacanam) and softening. By the heat
within food and drink are digested. M,, loc. cit.
^ The text reads here both chambitattam and tham-
bhitattam, fluctuation (quaking) and inflation. The
former term, however, is not elsewhere in the Atthasalini
applied to vayo ; the latter, with the intensive vi-, is
declared to be the characteristic mark of vayo, other
features of the element being onward movement (samu-
diranam) and downward force (abhiniharam
—
sic lege,
Cfl D. i.*76; M. i. 119; Asl. 332). Now Buddhaghosa
passes over chambhitattam in silence, but explains
thambhitattam. Again, though this is, of course, not
conclusive, only the single term thambhitattam ru-
passa seems to be called for by the parallel, bandhanat-
tam rupassa (cohesiveness), in the description of fluidity.
It is significant also that K omits chambhitattam. On


(v.) derived ?'^
The spheres of the five senses . . . aad solid nutriment.
Such is the Category of Form under a Fivefold Aspect.
[End of] the Group of Five.
these grounds taken together, I should be inclined to doubt
the original inclusion of the term. The instance chosen to
illustrate the inflating function characteristic of vayo is
that of the sheaths or stems of lotuses and reeds which are
'
filled with air,' or wind (vatapunnani).
^ *
Derived' (up a da) is the opposite of (i.) to (iv.). See
§§ 647, 648.


[Chapter VI.
The Category of Form under a Sixfold Aspect.]
[967]
(i.) The sphere of visible forms is form cognizable
by sight,
(ii.) The sphere of sounds is form cognizable by
hearing,
(iii.) The sphere of odours is form cognizable by
smell,
(iv.) The sphere of tastes is form cognizable by taste,
(v.) The sphere of the tangible is form cognizable
by body-sensibility.
(vi.) All form is form cognizable by the mind.
Such is the Category of Form under a Sixfold Aspect.
[End of] the Group of Six.


[Chapter YII.
The Category of Form under a Sevenfold Aspect.]
[968]
(i.) The sphere of visible form is form cognizable
by sight,
(ii.) The sphere of sound is form cognizable by
hearing,
(iii.) The sphere of odour is form cognizable by
smell.
(iv.) The sphere of taste is form cognizable by taste,
(v.) The sphere of the tangible is form cognizable
by body-sensibility.
[969]
(vi.) The spheres of visible form, sound, odour,
taste, and the tangible are form cognizable
by the element of ideation.
(vii.) All form is form comprehensible by the element
of representative intellection.
Such is the Category of Form under a Sevenfold Aspect.
[End of] the Group of Seven.


[Chapter VIII.
The Category of Form under an Eightfold Aspect.]
[970]
(i.) The sphere of visible form is form cognizable
by the eye.
(ii.) The sphere of sound is form cognizable by
the ear.
(iii.) The sphere of odour is form cognizable by the
nose.
(iv.) The sphere of taste is form cognizable by the
tongue,
(v.) Pleasurable agreeable contact obtainable by
touch is form cognizable by the body,
(vi.) Unpleasant disagreeable contact obtainable by
touch is form cognizable by the body,
(vii.) The spheres of the five kinds of sense-objects
are form cognizable by ideation,
(viii.) All form is form comprehensible by repre-
sentative intellection.
Such is the Category of Form under an Eightfold Aspect.
[End of] the Group of Eight.


[Chapter IX.
The Category of Form under a Ninefold Aspect.]
[971-973] What is that form which is
(i.) the faculty of vision ?
(ii.) the faculty of hearing ?
(iii.) the faculty of smell ?
(iv.) the faculty of taste ?
(v.) the faculty of body-sensibility ?
(vi.) the potentiality of femininity ?
(vii.) the potentiality of masculinity ?
(viii.) the potentiality of vitality ?
I'he eight answers are those given in the original descrip-
tions of the eight faculties or potentialities enumerated (^^ 597,
601, 605, 609, 613, 633-535).
(ix.) What is that form which is not faculty ?
The spheres of the five kinds of sense-objects . . .^ and
bodily nutriment.
Such is the Category of Form under a Ninefold Aspect.
[End of] the Group of Nine.
^ That is to say, the remainder of § 596, but omitting, of
course, the three * indriyas ' of the sexes and vitality, and
presumably inserting '
the element of fluidity ' (cf p. 203,
n. 3).


[Chapter X.
The Category of Form under a Tenfold Aspect.]
[974, 975] The first eight questions and ansivers are
identical with the first eight in the preceding group.
[976, 977] What is that form which is
(ix.) not faculty hut impingeing ?
The spheres of the five kinds of sense-objects.
(x.) notfacidty and non-impingeing ?
Intimation . . .^ and bodily nutriment.
Such is the Category of Form under a Tenfold Aspect.
[End of] the Group of Ten.
^ That is to say, the remainder of § 596, beginning at
bodily intimation, and presumably inserting *
the element
of fluidity.'


[Chapter XI.
The Category of Form under an Elevenfold Aspect.]
[978, 979] What is that form which is
(i.) the sphere of vision ?
(ii.) the sphere of hearing ?
(iii.) the sphere of smell ?
(iv.) the sphere of taste ?
(v.) the sphere of body-sensibility ?
(vi.) the sphere of visible form ?
(vii.) the sphere of sound ?
(viii.) the sphere of odour ?
(ix.) the sphere of sapids ?
(x.) the sphere of the tangible ?
Answers as in ^ 597, 601, 605, 609, 613, 617, 621, 625,
629, 649 respectively,
[980]
(xi.) What is that form which is invisible, non-
impingeing, and included in the sphere of
[mental] states?^
Sex . . . and bodily nutriment.
Such is the Category of Form under an Elevenfold
Aspect.
[End of] the Group of Eleven.
[End of] THE Divisions of Form.
[End of] the Eighth Portion for Recitation.
^ Dhammayatana-pariyapannam. For the full
content of the answer, see, as before, the last fourteen
items in § 596.

Dhamma-Sangani - FORM - Categories of Form under Fourfold Aspects

A BUDDHIST MANUAL
Psychological Ethics,
FROM THE PALI
OF THE
DHAMMA-SANGANI

Translated by CAROLINE A. F. RHYS DAVIDS, M.A.

[Chapter IV.
Categories of Form under Fourfold Aspects.]^
[Derivation.-^Work of Karma.]
[877-880] What is that form which is
(i.) derived and the issue of grasping ?
The spheres of the five senses ; the potentialities of sex
and vitality, or whatever other form exists through karma
having been wrought, whether it be in the sphere of visible
forms,^ odours, or tastes, the element of space, the integra-
tion or subsistence of form, or bodily nutriment,
(ii.) derived and not the issue of grasping ?
The sphere of sounds, bodily and vocal intimation, the
lightness, plasticity, and wieldiness of form, or whatever
other form exists which is not due to karma having been
^ The logical method in this division is familiar enough,
namely (where capitals represent positive, and uncials,
negative terms), AB, Ab, aB, ab. The former term in the
pair combined is, with its negative, a relative constant,
there being a series of only six, namely, the concept of
form as derived, as the product of karma, as that which
breeds karma (literally, is karma-is/i or karm-mts), as im-
pressing the senses, as faculty, and as one of the elements
(i.e., the opposite of derived, conceived positively). The
latter five of these six are in turn used as the relatively
variable term, with the addition of three others : the
concept of form with respect to grossness or delicacy, to
distance, and to visibility.
2 On sound and karma, see p. 201, n. 4.


wrought, whether it be in the spheres of visible forms,
odours, or tastes, the element of space, the integration or
subsistence of form, or bodily nutriment.
(iii.) underived and the issue of grasping ?
[Form] due to karma having been wrought, which is in
the sphere of the tangible and the fluid element,
(iv.) underived and not the issue of grasping ?
[Form] not due to karma having been wrought, which is
in the sphere of the tangible and the fluid element.
[Derivation'^-Production of Karma.]
[881-884] What is that form which is
(i.) derived and both the issue of grasping and favour-
able to it ?
(ii.) derived and not the issue of grasping but favourable
to it ?^
(iii.) underived and both the issue of grasping and favour-
able to it ?
(iv.) underived and not the issue of grasping but favour-
able to it P-
The four answers are respectively identical with those in
the preceding group,
[Derivation'--Impact.]
[885-888] What is that form which is
(i.) derived and impingeing ?
The spheres of the ^Ye senses, and of visible form, sound,,
odour and taste.
(ii.) derived and non-impingeing ?
Sex . . . and bodily nutriment.
(iii.) underived and impingeing ?
The sphere of the tangible.
(iv.) underived and non-impingeing ?
The fluid element.
1 See § 656, n. 1.
2 Read na before kammassa in the answer.


[Derivation-^Bulk.]
[889-892] What is that form which is
(i.) derived and gross ?
(ii.) derived and subtle ?
(iii.) underived and gross ?
(iv.) derived and subtle ?
Answers respectively identical icith those in the preceding
group,
[Derivation—^Proximity.]
[893-896] What is that form which is
(i.) derived and remote ?
Sex . . . and bodily nutriment.
(ii.) derived and near ?
The spheres of the five senses, and those of visible form,
sound, odour and taste.
(iii.) underived and remote ?
The fluid element.
(iv.) underived and near ?
The sphere of the tangible.
[Work of Karma^—^Visibility.]
[897-900] What is that form which is
(i.) the issue of grasping and visible 'I
The sphere of visible form which is due to karma having
been wrought.
(ii.) the issue of grasping and invisible ?
The spheres of the five senses ; sex and vitality, or
whatever other form exists through karma having been
wrought, whether it be in the spheres of odour, taste, or
the tangible, the elements of space or fluidity, the integra-
tion or subsistence of form, or bodily nutriment,
(iii.) not the issue of grasping^ and visible?
The sphere of visible form which is not due to karma
having been wrought.
^ In the printed text read anupadinnam.


(iv.) not the issue of grasping and invisible ?
The sphere of sound, bodily and vocal intimation, the
lightness, plasticity, wieldiness of form, the decay, or the
impermanence of form, or whatever other form exists which
is not due to karma having been wrought, whether it be in
the spheres of odour, or of taste, or of the tangible, the
elements of space, or of fluidity, the integration or sub-
sistence of form, or bodily nutriment.
[Work of Karma'-^Impact.]
[901-904] What is that form which is
(i.) the issue of grasping and impingeing ?
The spheres of the five senses, or whatever other form
exists through karma having been wrought in the spheres
of visible form, odour, taste or the tangible.
(ii.) tlie issue of grasping and non-impingeing ?
Sex or vitality, or whatever other form exists through
karma having been wrought in the elements of space or
fluidity, in the integration, or subsistence of form, or in
bodily nutriment.
(iii.) not the issue of grasping and impingeing ?
The sphere of sound, or whatever other form exists which
is not due to karma having been wrought in the spheres
of the other four kinds of sense-objects.
(iv.) not the issue of grasping and non-impingeing I
Bodily and vocal intimation, the lightness, plasticity,
wieldiness, decay, or impermanence of form, or whatever
other form exists which is not due to karma having been
wrought in the elements of space or fluidity, in the integra-
tion or subsistence of form, or in bodily nutriment.
[Work of Karma-^Great Phenomena.]
[905-908] What is that form which is
(i.) the issue of grasping and great phenomenon t
The sphere of the tangible and the fluid element which
are due to karma having been wrought.


(ii.) the issue of grasping and not great phenomenon ?
The spheres of the five senses, sex, vitality, or whatever
other form exists through karma having been wrought, in
the element of space, in the integration or subsistence of
form, or in bodily nutriment.
(iii.) not the issue of grasping but great phenomenon ?
The sphere of the tangible and the fluid element which
are not due to karma having been wrought.
(iv.) not the issue of grasping nor great phenomenon ?
The sphere of sound, 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 spheres
of visible form, odour, or taste, in the element of space, in
the integration or subsistence of form, or in bodily nutri-
ment.
[Work of Karma-^Bulk.]
[909-912] What is that form which is
(i.) the issue of grasping and gross ?
(ii.) the issue of grasping and subtle ?
(iii.) not the issue of grasping and gross f
(iv.) not the issue of grasping and subtle ?'^
Answers respectively identical with the four in the next
preceding group but one (§§ 901-904).
[Work of Karma-'-Proximity.]
[913-916] What is that form which is
(i.) the issue of grasping and remote?
(ii.) the issue of grasping and near?
(iii.) not the issue of grasping and remote ?
(iv.) not the issue of grasping and near?
Answers identical with those in the preceding group (i.e.,
^vith those in §§ 901-904), but having the order of the first and
second answers inverted, as ivell as that of the third and fourth.
^ In the answer to this question the printed text has
omitted to insert apodhatu. W §§ 892 and 880.


[917-936]
In the next five groups of four, form is considered as a
combination of (a) *
the issue of grasping and favourable to
grasping,' and either 'visible,'^ * impingeing,' *a great
phenomenon,' *
gross '
or *
remote,' or the opposites of these
five taken successively ; (h) '
not the issue of grasping, but
favourable to grasping,' and the five above-named attributes
and their opposites taken successively. Thus the questions are
analogous to, and the answers identical ivith, those in the pre-
ceding five groups (§§ 897-916).
[Impact-^Faculty.]
[937-940] What is that form which is
(i.) impingeing and faculty ?
The faculties of the five senses.
(ii.) impingeing and not faculty ?
The five kinds of sense-objects.
(iii.) non-impingeingandfacidty?
Sex and vitality.
(iv.) no7i-impingeing and not faculty ?
Bodily and vocal intimation . . . and bodily nutriment.
[Impact-*^Great Phenomenon.]
[941-944] What is that form which is
(i.) impingeing and a great phenomenon ?
The sphere of the tangible.
(ii.) impingeing and not a great phenomenon '?
The spheres of visible form, sound, odour and taste.
(iii.) non-impingeing and a great phenomenon ?
The fluid element.
(iv.) non-impingeing and not a great phenomenon ?
Sex . . . and bodily nutriment.
^ In the answer to the first question, § 917, read na before
kammassa.


[Faculty (Potentiality)^-Bulk.]
[945-948] What is that form which is
(i.) faculty and gross .^
The faculties of the five senses.
(ii.) faculty and subtle .?
Sex and vitality.
(iii.) nonfaculty and gross 1
The spheres of the five kinds, of sense-objects.
(iv.) nonfacidty and subtle .^
Intimation . . . and bodily nutriment.
[Faculty (Potentiality)^-Proximity.]
[949-952] What is that form which is
(i.) facidty and remote t
Sex and vitality.
(ii.) faculty and near ?
The faculties of the five senses.
(iii.) nonfacidty and remote t
Intimation . . . and bodily nutriment.
(iv.) nonfaculty and near ?
The spheres of the five kinds of sense-objects.
[Great Phenomenon-^Bulk.]
[953-956] What is that form which is
(i.) a great phenomenon and gross ? _
The sphere of the tangible.
(ii.) a great phenomenon and subtle ?
The fluid element.
(iii.) not a great phenomenon and gross t
The spheres of the five senses and of visible form, sounds
odour and taste.
(iv.) not a great phenomenon and sid)tle f
Sex . . . and bodily nutriment.


[Great Phenomenon-^Proximity.]
[957-960] What is that form which is
(i.) a great phenomenon and remote ?
The fluid element.
(ii.) a great phenomenon and near?
The sphere of the tangible.
(iii.) not a great phenomenon and remote ?
Sex and vitality.
(iv.) not a great p>henomenon and near ?
The spheres of the five senses and of visible form, sound,
odour and taste.
[Form as Seen, Heard, Imagined, Understood.]
[961] (i.) The sphere of visible form is Form Seen,
(ii.) The sphere of sound is Form Heard,
(iii.) The sphere of odour, taste and the tangible
is Form Imagined,^
^ Mutam. I am under the impression that the first
three members of this group are survivals of an older
tradition, belonging to an age when the five senses had not
been co-ordinated by psychological analysis comparable to
that effected by the earlier Buddhist school, and when
mano and its function, expressed here (in part) by this
old past participle, were more vaguely conceived. In the
Pra9na Upanishad , e.g., which may or may not be older
than the Abhidhamma, either the five senses are grouped
as above under man as, eye and ear, or the last two are
alone held worthy to rank with the divine elements of life.
If it be contended that the former interpretation is not
plausible, it should be remembered that, in the far older
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (i., 5, 3), it is said that by
man as we know when we are touched from behind. It is
as though the tradition were endeavouring to say. Smell,
taste, touching, without the aid either of sight or of hearing,
require a greater effort of inference, of mental construction,
of imagination, to realize the external cause, or potential
concrete mental percept, than either sight or hearing.


(iv.) All form is Form Cognized by the mind.^
Such are the Categories of Form under Fourfold Aspects.
[End of] the Groups of Four.
Buddhaghosa, who here resumes his parable (Asl. 338),
paraphrases mutam by munitva janitabbatthena,
and by phusitva pi nanuppattikaranato.
^Manasa vinnatam, that is, manoviniianena ja-
nitabbam. Ibid.

Dhamma-Sangani - FORM - Categories of Form under Triple Aspects

A BUDDHIST MANUAL
Psychological Ethics,
FROM THE PALI
OF THE
DHAMMA-SANGANI

Translated by CAROLINE A. F. RHYS DAVIDS, M.A.

[Chapter III.
Categories of Form under Triple Aspects. Exposition
of the Triplets.]^
[742-744] What is that form which is
(i.) personal^ and derived?
The spheres of the five senses.
(ii.) external and derived ?
The sphere of visible form . . . and bodily nutriment.^
(iii.) external and not derived ?
The sphere of the tangible and the fluid element.
[745-747] What is that form which is
(i.) personal and the issue of grasping ?
The spheres of the five senses.
^ To lighten the tedium to the reader of looking through
this lengthy analysis of form considered as of the self or of
the not-self taken in combination with the presence or
absence of some other attribute, I have attempted a mode
of grouping the triplets. I have also curtailed each answer
of that constant feature, the concluding affirmation, termed
in the Cy. (p. 55) the appana. Cf. preceding answers.
'^
Ajjhattikam. The word 'personal' corresponds
more strictly perhaps to puggalikam, but it is less
cumbrous than 'of,' or 'belonging to, the self,' while
it is, at the same time, not an incorrect rendering. See
p. 207, n. 1.
•^
This presumably still refers to § 596, which these two
first answers may be held to exhaust between them, with-
out the insertion of '
the sphere of the tangible,' which
comes under (iii.). Cf. the preceding chapter.


(ii.) external and the issue of grasping ?
Femininity, masculinity, vitality, or whatever other form
exists through karma having been wrought, whether it be
in the spheres of visible form, odour, taste, or the tangible,
in the spatial or the fluid element, in the integration or
subsistence of form, or in bodily nutriment.^
(iii.) external and not the issue of grasping ?
The sphere of sound, 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 spheres
of visible form,^ odour, taste, or the tangible, in the spatial
or the fluid element, etc. [continue as in ii.].
[748-750] What is that form which is
(i.) personal and both the issue of grasping and Javour-
able to grasping .^
(ii.) external and both the issue of grasping and favour-
able to grasping ?
(iii.) external and not the issue of grasping but favourable
to grasping ?
The answers are identical ivith those in the jweceding
triplet^ taken in order.
^
[751^753] What is that form which is
(i.) personal and invisible ?
The spheres of the five senses.
(ii.) external and visible ?
The sphere of visible form.
(iii.) external and invisible ?
The sphere of sound . . . and bodily nutriment*
1 C/. §§ 653, 654.
2 Saddayatanam, here repeated in the printed text, is
omitted in K.
^ In § 750 read kammassa before katatta.
* Fill up from § 596 as before.


[754-756] What is that form which is
(i.) personal and reacting (impingeing) ?'^
The spheres of the five senses,
(ii.) external and impingeing ?
The spheres of the five kinds of sense-objects,
(iii.) external and non-impingeing .^^
Sex^ . . . and bodily nutriment.
[757-759] What is that form which is
(i.) personal and a faculty .^
The five faculties of sense.
(ii.) extei'nal and a faculty ?
Sex and vitality.
(iii.) external and not a faculty ?
The sphere of visible form . . . and bodily nutriment.*
[760-762] What is that form which is
(i.) personal and not one of the Great Phenomena ?
The spheres of the five senses.
(ii.) external and belonging to the Great Phenomena ?
The sphere of the tangible and the fluid element.^
(iii.) external and not one of the Great Phenomena 1
The spheres of the [other four kinds of sense-objects]^
. . . and bodily nutriment.
[763-765] What is that form which is
(i.) personal and not intimation ?
The spheres of the five senses.
(ii.) external and intimation ?
Bodily and vocal intimation.''
^ See p. 175, n. 2, and p. 183, n. 1.
2 For sappatigham read appatigham.
3 This term is substituted as a convenient abbreviation
for the indriyas of both sexes. Cf. § 596.
* Supply as before from § 596.
° See § 647 et seq.
^ Actually '
of visible form . .
.' See note 1.
7 See §§ 636, 637.


(iii.) external and not intimation ?
The spheres of the five kinds of sense-objects . . . and
bodily nutriment.
[766-768] What is that form which is
(i.) personal and sprung from thought ?^
The spheres of the five senses.
(ii.) external and sprung from thought?
Bodily and vocal intimation, or whatever other form
exists which is born of thought, caused by thought, etc.
[continue as in § 667].
(iii.) external and not sprung from thought ?
Sex and vitality, the decay and impermanence of form,
or whatever other form exists which is not born of thought,
caused by thought, etc. [continue as in § 668].
[769-771] What is that form which is
(i.) personal and does not come into being together with
a thought .^
The spheres of the five senses.
(ii.) external and comes into being together with a
thought ?
Bodily and vocal intimation.
(iii.) external and does not come into being, etc, ?
The spheres of the five kinds of sense-objects . . . and
bodily nutriment.
[772-774] What is that form which is
(i.) personal and not consecutive to a thought ?
(ii.) external and consecutive to a thought ?
(iii.) external and not consecutive to a thought ?
The answers are identical with those in the preceding
triplet, taken in order.
[775-777] What is that form which is
(i.) personal and gross P
The spheres of the five senses.
1 See § 667 et seq. ^ See § 675 et seq.


(ii.) external and gross ?
The spheres of the five kinds of sense-objects.
(iii.) external and subtle .^
Sex . . . and bodily nutriment.
[778-780] What is that form which is
{i.) personal and near ?^
The spheres of the five senses.
(ii.) external and remote ?
Sex . . . and bodily nutriment.
(iii.) external and near ?
The spheres of the five kinds of sense-objects.
[781-783] What is that form which is
(i.) external and not the basis of visual contact?^
The spheres of the five kinds of sense-objects . . . and
bodily nutriment.
(ii.) personal and the basis of visual contact ^
The sphere of vision.
(iii.) personal and not the basis of visual contact ?
The sphere of the other four senses.
[784-786] What is that form which is
(i.) external and not a basis of
the feeling . . .
the perception . . .
the thinking ...
the visual cognition
that is born of visual contact ?
(ii.) personal and a basis of the feeling^ . . , the visual
cognition that is born of visual contact ?
(iii.) 2^^'^sonal and not a basis of the feeling . . . the
visual cognition that is born of visual contact ?
Answers identical with those in the preceding triplet.
1 See § 677 et seq. 2 g^^ § 579 ^^ ^^^^
^ Concerning the lacunae in this and the following sen-
tences on '
basis,' cf § 681 et seq. and notes.


[787-789] What is that form which is
(i.) external and not a basis of
auditory . . .
olfactory . . .
gustatory . . .
bodily contact ?
The spheres of the five kinds of sense objects . . . and
bodily nutriment.
(ii.) personal and a basis of . . , bodily contact ?
The spheres of the other four senses respectively.
(iii.) personal and not a basis of . . . bodily contact '}
The sphere of . . . vision, hearing, smell, taste.
[790-792] What is that form which is
(i.) external and not a basis of
the feeling . . .
the perception . . .
the thinking . . .
the , . , cognition of body
that is born of , . . bodily contact
!
(ii.) personal and a basis of . . . the cognition of body
that is born of bodily contact ?
(iii.) personal and not a basis of . . . the cognition of
body that is born of bodily contact '}
Answers identical with those in the preceding triplet taken
in order,
[793-795] What is that form which is
(i.) personal and not the object apprehended on occasion
of visual contact ?
The spheres of the five senses.
(ii.) external and the object apprehended on occasion of
visual contact ?
The sphere of visible form.
(iii.) external and not the object apprehended on occasion
of visual contact ?
The spheres of the other four kinds of sense-objects . . .
and bodily nutriment.


[796-798] What is that form which is
(i.) personal and not the object of
the feeling . . .
the perception . . .
the thinking . . .
the visual cognition
tliat is horn of visual contact ?
(ii.) external and the object of . . . visual cognition ?
(iii.) external and not the object of , . , . visual cogni-
tion ?
Answers identical with those in the preceding triplet, taken
in order.
[799-801] What is that form which is
(i.) personal and not the object apprehended on occa-
sion of
auditory . . .
olfactory ...
gustatory ...
bodily contact 1
The spheres of the five senses.
(ii.) external and the object apprehended on occasion
of . . . bodily contact ?
The sphere of the tangible.
(iii.) external and not the object apprehended on occasion
of , . . bodily contact 'I
The spheres of the five kinds of sense-objects . . . and
bodily nutriment.
[802-804] What is that form which is
(i.) personal and not the object of
the feeling . . .
the perception . . .
the thinking . . .
the . . . cognition of body
that is born of . , . bodily contact '!^
The spheres of the five senses.


(ii.) external and the object of the , . . cognition of body
that is born of bodily contact ?
The sphere of . . . the tangible.
(iii.) external and not the object of the . . . cognition of
body that is born, etc.
The spheres of the other four kinds of sense-objects . . .
and bodily nutriment.
[805-807] What is that form which is
(i.) external and not the sphere of vision ?
The spheres of the five kinds of sense-objects . . . and
bodily nutriment.
(ii.) personal and the sphere of vision ?
The eye, that is to say the sentient organ which is
derived from the four Great Phenomena . . . this that is
* an empty village '
—this, etc.^
(iii.) 'personal and not the sphere of vision ?
The spheres of the other four senses.
[808-810] What is that form which is
(i.) external and not the sphere of hearing, smell, taste,
or body-sensibility !
The spheres of the five kinds of sense-objects . . . and
bodily nutriment.
(ii.) personal and the sphei^e of . . , body-sensibility 1
The body, that is to say the sentient organ, which is
derived from the Great Phenomena . . . this that is *
an
empty village '
—this, etc.
(iii.) personal and not the sphere of . . , body-sensibility ?
The spheres of the other four senses.
[811-813] What is that form which is
(i.) personal and not the sphere of visible fonn ?
The spheres of the five senses.
^ For this and similar answers in following triplets see
§ 597 et seq.


(ii.) external and the sphere of visible form ?
That form which, derived from the four Great Pheno-
mena, is visible under the appearance of colour . . . this
that is the element of visible form—this, etc.^
(iii.) external and not the sphere of visible form ?
The spheres of the other four kinds of sense-objects . . .
and bodily nutriment.
[814-816] What is that form which is
(i.) personal and not the sphere of sound, or of odour, or
of taste, or of the tangible 1
The spheres of the five senses.
(ii.) external and the sphere of . . , the tangible ?
The earthy (solid) element, etc. . . . this that is the
constituent element of the tangible—this, etc.^
(iii.) external and not the sphere of . . , the tangible ?
The spheres of the other four kinds of sense-objects . . .
and bodily nutriment.
[817-819] What is that form which is
(i.) external and not the element of vision ?
The spheres of the five kinds of sense-objects . . . and
bodily nutriment.
(ii.) personal and the element of vision ?
The sphere of vision.
(iii.) personal and not the element of vision ?
The other four senses.
[820-822] What is that form which is
(i.) external and not the element of hearing, smell, taste,
or body-sensibility ?
The spheres of the five kinds of sense-objects . . . and
bodily nutriment.
(ii.) personal and the element of . . . body-sensibility ?
The sphere of . . . body-sensibility.
1 See § 617. ^ gee § 648.


(iii.) personal and not the element of . . , hody-sensi-
hility ?
The spheres of the other four senses.
[823-825] What is that form which is
(i.) personal and not the element of visible form ?
The spheres of the five senses.
(ii.) external and the element of visible form ?
The sphere of visible forms.
(iii.) external and not the element of visible form ?
The spheres of the other four kinds of sense-objects . . .
and bodily nutriment.
[826-828] What is that form which is
(i.) personal and not the element of sounds odour, taste
or the tangible '!'
The spheres of the five senses.
(ii.) external and the element of . . , the tangible ?
The sphere of the tangible.
(iii.) external and not the element of . . . the tangible ?
The spheres of the five kinds of sense-objects . . . and
bodily nutriment.
[829-831] What is that form which is
(i.) external and not the facidty of vision ?
The spheres of the five kinds of sense-objects . . . and
bodily nutriment.
(ii.) personal and the facidty of vision ?
The sphere of vision.
(iii.) personal and not the faculty of vision ?
The spheres of the other four senses.
[832-834] What is that form which is
(i.) external and not the faculty of hearing, smell, taste,
or body-sensibility ?
The spheres of the five kinds of sense-objects . . . and
bodily nutriment.


(ii.) personal and the faculty of . , , body-sensibility ?
The body, that is to say the sentient organ which is
derived from the four Great Phenomena . . . this that is
*
an empty village '
—this, etc.
(iii.) personal and not the faculty of . , . body-sensi-
bility ?
The spheres of the other four senses.
[835-837] What is that form which is
(i.) personal and not the jJotentiaUty oj femininity t
The spheres of the five senses,
(ii.) external and femininity /
That which is of the female, female in appearance, etc.
[continue as in § 633]
.
(iii.) external and not femininity ?
The spheres of the five kinds of sense-objects . . . and
bodily nutriment.
[838-840] What is that form which is
(i.) personal and not the potentiality of mascidinity I etc.
The questions and answers in this triplet are exactly
analogous ivith those in the foregoing, § 634 constituting the
answer to (ii.).
'
[841-843] This triplet is on *
vitality,' and is also exactly
analogous with that on * femininity,' § 635 being substituted
in (ii.).
[844-846] What is that form which is
(i.) personal and not bodily intimation ^
The spheres of the five senses.
(ii.) external and bodily intimation ?
That tension, intension, tense state of the body, etc.
[continue as in § 636]
.
(iii.) external and not bodily intimation ?
The spheres of the five kinds of sense-objects . . . and
bodily nutriment.


[847-849] This triplet is on *
vocal intimation,' and similar
to the foregoingJ § 637 being quoted as the answer to the
second question,
[850-876] Here follow ten triplets on the presence or
absence, inform that is personal or external, of the ten follow-
ing attributes—identical with those ending the categories ac-
cording to Pairs (§§ 722-741).
the element of space, the integration of form,
the element of fluidity, the subsistence of form,
the lightness of form, the decay of form,
the plasticity of form, the impermanence of form,
the wieldiness of form, bodily nutriment.
Questions and answers in each of these triplets are identical
with those in the triplet last set out on '
bodily intimation
'
(§§ 844-846), the only varying elements being the specific kind
^f form inquired into and its definition in the second answer
of each triplet. Thus the schema of the questions is
(i.) personal and not . . .
(ii.) external and . . .
(iii.) external and not . . .^
Such are the Categories of Form under Threefold Aspects.
[End of] the Exposition of Triplets.
^ There are several omissions in the printed text, break-
ing into the symmetry of the triplets, viz. : question and
answer (iii.) on akasadhatu (following § 851); question
and answer (iii.) onrupassa upacayo (following § 865);
question and answer (i.) on rupassa santati (following
§ 865). These, if duly inserted, would bring the number
of questions (and answers) at the end of this chapter up to
879, instead of 876. Had the triplets been grouped as
such, the omissions would not have been possible.

Dhamma-Sangani - FORM - Categories of Form under Dual aspects—positive and negative III

A BUDDHIST MANUAL
Psychological Ethics,
FROM THE PALI
OF THE
DHAMMA-SANGANI

Translated by CAROLINE A. F. RHYS DAVIDS, M.A.

[673] What is that form which belongs to the self
(ajjhattikam) ?^
The spheres of the five senses—this is that form which
belongs to the self.
[674] What is that form which is external (to the self
—
bahiram) ?
The sphere of the five kinds of sense-objects . . .^ and
bodily nutriment—this is that form which is external (to
the self).
[675] Which is that form which is gross (olarikam) ?
The spheres of the five senses and of the five kinds of
sense-objects—this is that form which is gross.
[676] Which is that form which is subtle (suk-
humam) ?
^ See below, §§ 1044, 1045. It will already have been
noted (p. 59, n. J.), that ajjhattam, ajjhattikam does
not run on all fours with our modern psychological term
'
subjective,' or that which belongs to the conscious experi-
ence of the individual. It connotes anything belonging to
an individual organism, physical or mental. Hence, too,
the word '
self ' must here be understood in no narrow
metaphysical, or even psychological sense, but as equiva-
lent to the concrete person or attabhavo (see above^
p. 175, n. 1). It is used in the sense of all but the last
of the four constituents into which Professor W. James-
divides the Self, viz., the material Self (body, clothes,
family, home, property : the Buddhist would only admit
the first item, I fancy), the social Self (recognition from
others), and the spiritual Self (psychic faculties or dis-
positions). ('Principles of Psychology,' 1892, i. 292-296.)
Only the fourth constituent, the '
pure Ego,' was rejected
by Buddhism, as it was, twenty-two centuries later, by
Hume. O/., however, the apparently more '
subjective
'
use in §§ 161 and 1207.
I have felt equal reluctance to foist the (relatively)
modern counterpart 'objective' on to bahiram or bahid-
dha(see § 1045).
^ Bead in full, this should coincide with the latter part
of § 596, beginning at *
the spheres of visible form.'


Femininity . . . and bodily nutriment—this is that form
'which is subtle.^
[677] What is that form which is remote (dure)?
Femininity . . . and bodily nutriment—this is that form
which is remote.
[678] What is that form which is near (santike) ?
The spheres of the five senses and of the five kinds of
sense-objects—this is that form which is near.^
^ The Cy., paraphrasing olarikam by thulam, ex-
plains that this has reference to the material embodiment
of sense-objects and to the fact of sensuous impact, suk-
humam connoting the contrary. Under the latter class
we have, according to my assumption (p. 203, n. 3), the
indriyas of sex and vitality, intimation, space, the modes
of form and the nutritive principle in food. The force of
this effort at dichotomy is, to the modern Western mind,
curious and not obvious. It is suggestive of tradition earlier
than the date of the compiling of the Abhidhamma, as
«arly as the earlier Upanishads—of a time when there
was no definite antithesis between material and immaterial,
extended and unextended. We have seen that the senses,
though 'invisible,' were conceived as species of 'form'
—
nay, that the later Cy. preserved the tradition of their shape
and size. And I incline to think that just as, in the older
Upanishads, soul was a shadowy, impalpable, but '
physi-
cal double of the physical body,' and just as '
when an
early Greek philosopher speaks of to 6v, he does not mean
Being, but Body' (Burnet, 'Early Greek Philosophy,' 27),
so the items in the list divided out in these two answers
are all physical '
forms,' whether patent, impressive, and
pervading, or latent, fine and mysterious.
^ Dure, the Cy. explains, refers to that which on
account of its being difficult to apprehend or discriminate
cannot be discerned by way of the sensuous impact, whether
it be literally far or near at hand. Conversely, s an tike
refers to things which are patent to sense, even though they
may be distant. The content of each division agrees with that
of the preceding division, and we see that, whereas the field
of sense-perception is pronounced to be a relatively patent,
as well as gross concern, the essence of sex, vitality, etc.,


[Basis (vatthu).p
[679] What is that form which is the basis of visual con-
tact (cakkhusamphassassa vatthu)?
The sphere of vision—this is that form which is the basis
of visual contact.
[680] What is that form which is not the basis of visual
contact ?
The sphere of hearing . . .^ and bodily nutriment—this
is that form which is not, etc.
down to the nutritive principle in food, is found to be as
obscure, latent or relatively inaccessible, as it was subtle or
minute. Asl. 337.
^ From § 653 to § 961 the Commentator lapses into
silence, dismissing the reader with the remark that in the
exposition on *
spheres,' etc. (§§ 695-741), the method of
treatment is more detailed than it was above, and, further,
that the category of triplets (§ 742 et seq.) is easy to
understand. To enable the reader to gather with more
ease the drift of this part of the catechizing, I have in-
serted a few headings to indicate whenever there is a
change in the aspect under which 'form' is considered.
Thus we have form considered under the aspect of the
basis (vatthu) in the subjective procedure of coming-to-
know, of the object so apprehended, and so forth.
In all the answers, where lacunae occur, except where
otherwise specified, the formula appears to be the answer
of § 596, with one or more terms omitted, and with the
occasional insertion of 'the sphere of the tangible,' ac-
cording to the sense required by each specific process of
dichotomy.
2 By referring to the standard answer, § 596, it will be
seen that the negatives in the present answer include
* visible forms,' or the objects of the sense of vision. Now,
vatthu means seat, embodiment, or what we might call
physical basis. However, then, the process of sense-stimu-
lation was ultimately conceived, the effective result was
held to take place in the sense-organ (and heart). The
sense-object was defined as the arammanam of the con-
tact. See § 687.


[681] What is that form which is the basis of
the feeUng . . .
the perception . . .
the thinking . . .
the visual cognition
which is born of visual contact ?
The sphere of vision—this is that form which is the basis
of the . . . visual cognition^ which is born of visual con-
tact.
[682] What is that form which is not the basis of the . . .
visual cognition born of visual contact ?
The sphere of hearing . . . and bodily nutriment—this
is that form which is not the basis of the . . . visual cogni-
tion born of visual contact.
[683] What is that form which is the basis of
auditory . . .
olfactory ...
gustatory . .
."^
bodily
contact ?
The sphere of . . .^ body-sensibility—this is that form
which is the basis of . . . bodily contact.
[684] What is that form which is not the basis of . . .
hodily contact ?
^ No hiatus appears, in either the English or Siamese
edition of the text, between rupam and cakkhuvin-
nanassa, but by the context the answer is, of course,
understood to deal in turn with all four mental processes
stated in the question. As usual, only the last term gets an
explicit answer. All four processes must also be under-
stood in the lacuna in § 682 and in § 686.
^ Jivha samphassassa has dropped out of the printed
text.
^ Here, of course, understand the spheres of hearing,
smell, and taste, and in the three following lacunae the
corresponding forms of contact. Proceed similarly in the
next two answers.


The sphere of vision . . . and bodily nutriment—this is
that form which is not the basis of . . . bodily contact.
[685] What is that form which is the basis of
the feeling . . .
the perception . . .
the thinking ...
the . . . cognition of body
that is born of . . . bodily contact ?
The sphere ... of body-sensibility—this is that form
which is the basis of the . . . cognition of body that is
born of . . . bodily contact.
[686] What is that form which is not the basis of the . . .
cognition of body born of . . . bodily contact ?
The sphere of vision . . . and bodily nutriment—this is
that form which is not the basis of the . . . cognition of
body born, etc.
[Me7ital object or idea (arammanam).]
[687] What is that form which is the object in visual
contact ?
The sphere of visible forms—this is that form which is
the object in visual contact.
[688] What is that form which is not the object in visual
contact ?
The sphere of vision . . . and bodily nutriment^—this
is that form which is not, etc.
[689] What is that form which is the object in
the feeling . . .
the perception . . .
the thinking . . .
the visual cognition
that is born of visual contact ?
^ I.e., as in § 596, omitting only '
the sphere of visible
forms,' and inserting, presumably, '
the sphere of the
tangible.'


The sphere of visible forms—this is that form which is
the object in . . . the visual cognition that is born of
visual contact.
[690] What is that form which is not^ the object in the
. . . visual cognition born of visual contact ?
The sphere of vision . . . and bodily nutriment—this is
that form which is not the object, etc.
[691] What is that form which is the object in
auditory . . .
olfactory ...
gustatory ...
bodily
contact?
The sphere of . . . the tangible—this is that form which
is the object in , . . bodily contact.
[692] What is that form which is not the object in . . .
bodily contact ?
The sphere of vision . . . and bodily nutriment—this is
that form which is not the object in . . . bodily contact.
[693] What is that form which is the object in
the feeling ...
the perception . . .
the thinking . . .
the . . . cognition of body
that is born of . . . bodily contact ?
The sphere of the tangible—this is that form which is the
object in the . . . cognition of body that is born of . . .
bodily contact.
^ The negative particle must be supplied in the printed text.
The lacunae in this and following sentences must be filled
up analogously with those in the preceding group. Thus,
in this question, the three other mental processes named in
the preceding question are to be understood; the answer
will be identical with that in § 596, excluding only *
the
sphere of visible forms,' but inserting *
the sphere of the
tangible.' And so on.


[694] What is that form which is not the object in the
. . . cognition of body that is born of bodily contact ?
The sphere of vision . . . and bodily nutriment^—this is
that form which is not the object, etc.
[Sphere of sense (ayatanam).]
[695] What is that form which is the sphere of vision ?
The eye, that is to say, the sentient organ which is derived
from the four Great Phenomena . . . this that is *
an empty
village '
—this is that form which is the sphere of vision.^
[696] What is that form which is not the sphere of vision ?
The sphere of hearing . . . and bodily nutriment—this
is that form which is not the sphere of vision.
[697] W^hat is that form which is the sphere of
hearing . . .
smell ...
taste . . .
body-sensibility ?
The body, that is to say, the sentient organ which is
derived from the four Great Phenomena . . . this that is
*
an empty village '
—this is that form which is the sphere
of . . . body-sensibility.
[698] What is that form which is not the sphere of . . .
body-sensibility ?
^ I.e.y repeat § 596 (into which * the sphere of the
tangible '
does not enter).
- The replies given here and to the four questions con-
densed in § 697 are apparently intended to be those set out
in sets of four expounding the current theory of sense-
reaction, §§ 597-616. Similarly, for the replies to the
questions on sense taken objectively (§§ 699, 701), see
§§ 617-632, 648-651.
The contradictories seem to be described in all four
answers, by a repetition of § 596, with the omission in each
case of the specific item named in the question on the
corresponding positive term, and, presumably, with the
insertion of *
the sphere of the tangible.*


The sphere of vision . . . and bodily nutriment—this is
that form which is not, etc.
[699] What is that form which is the sphere of visible
forms ?
That form which, derived from the four Great Phenomena,
is visible under the appearance of colour . . . this . . .
which is the constituent element of visible form—this is that
form which is the sphere of visible forms.
[700] What is that form which is not the sphere of visible
forms ?
The sphere of vision . . . and bodily nutriment—this is
that form which is not, etc.
[701] What is that form which is the sphere of
sound,
odour,
taste,
the tangible ?
The earthy (solid) element . . . this that is the . . .
element of the tangible—this is that form which is the
sphere of the tangible.^
[702] What is that form which is not the sphere of . . .
the tangible ?
The sphere of vision . . . and bodily nutriment—this is
that form which is not, etc.
[Element (dhatu) .]
[703] What is that form which is the element of
vision ?
The sphere of vision—this is that form which is the
element of vision.
^ In the printed text read rupam phottabba-
yatanam. The answer is, of course, the last of the four
several replies, the three first being understood.


[704] What is that form which is not the element of
vision ?
The sphere of hearing . . . and bodily nutriment^—this
is that form which is not the element of vision.
[705] What is that form which is the element of visible
form ?
The sphere of visible form—this is that form which is
the element of visible form.
[706] What is that form which is not the element of
visible form ?
The sphere of vision . . . and bodily nutriment—this is
that form which is not, etc.
[707] What is that form which is the element of sound
... of odour ... of taste ... of the tangible ?
The sphere of . . .^ the tangible—this is that form
which is the element of . . . the tangible.
[708] What is that form which is not the element of . . .
the tangible ?
The sphere of vision . . . and bodily nutriment—this is
that form which is not the element of . . . the tangible.
[Faculty (indriyam).]
[709] What is that form which is the faculty of vision ?
The eye, that is to say, the sentient organ which is
derived from the four Great Phenomena . . . this that is
* an empty village '^
—this is that form which is the faculty
of vision.
[710] What is that form which is not the faculty of
vision ?
^ Here supply the answer in § 596, omitting the first
term, and inserting '
the sphere of the tangible.'
^ Here, of course, supply the spheres of the other three
senses.
3 For the full formula, see § 597.


The sphere of hearing . . . and bodily nutriment^—this
is that form which is not, etc.
[711] What is that form which is the faculty of hearing
. . . smell . . . taste . . . body-sensibility?
The . . .^ body, that is to say, the sentient principle,
which is derived from the four Great Phenomena . . . this
that is '
an empty village '
—this is that form which is the
faculty of . . . body-sensibility.
[712] What is that form which is not the faculty of . . .
body-sensibility ?
The sphere of vision . . . and bodily nutriment—this is
that form which is not, etc.
[713] What is that form which is femininity (lit., the
female faculty or potentiality) ?^
That which is of the female, feminine in appearance,
characteristics, occupation, and deportment, feminine in
condition and being—this is that form which is femininity.
[713a] What is that form which is not femininity?
The sphere of vision . . . and bodily nutriment—this is
that form which is not, etc.*
[714] What is that form which is masculinity ?
That which is of the male, masculine in appearance,
characteristics, occupation, and deportment, masculine in
•condition and being—this is that form which is mascu-
linity.
[715] What is that form which is not masculinity?
Answer as in § 71Sa.^
^ I.e., answer as in § 596, omitting the first item, and
inserting * the sphere of the tangible.'
2 See §§ 601, 605, 609, 613. ^ gee §§ 633-635.
* [713a] is inadvertently omitted in the printed text.
^ §§ 713a, 715, and 717 are presumably identical with
§ 596, with the successive omission of the term excluded
by each question, and with the insertion always of '
the
sphere of the tangible.'


[716] What is that form which is (the faculty of)
vitality ?
The persistence of these corporeal states, their subsist-
ence, their going on, their being kept going on, their
progress, continuance, preservation, life, life as faculty
—
this is that form which is (the faculty of) vitality.
[717] What is that form which is not (the faculty of)
vitality ?
Ansiver as in § 713a.
[Intimation (vinnatti) .]
[718] What is that form which is bodily intimation ?
Answer as in § 636.
[719] What is that form which is not bodily intimation ?
The sphere of vision . . . and bodily nutriment—this is
that form which is bodily intimation.
[720] What is that form which is vocal intimation ?
Answer as in § 637.
[721] What is that form which is not vocal intimation ?
The sphere of vision . . . and bodily nutriment—this is
that form which is not, etc.^
[Space and fluid.]
[722] What is that form which is the element of
space ?
That which is space and belongs to space, is sky, belongs
to sky, is vacuum, belongs to vacuum, and is not in contact
with the four Great Phenomena—this is that form which
is the element of space.
^ Again, in these two negative categories, § 596 is pre-
sumably followed with corresponding omissions and inser-
tion. See p. 209, note 1.
^ Cf. with §§ 638, 652.


[723] "What is that form which is not the element of
space ?
Answer as § 721.
[724] What is that form which is the element of
fluidity ?
That which is fluid and belongs to fluid, that which is
viscid and belongs to viscid ; the cohesiveness of form—this
is that form which is the element of fluidity.
[725] What is that form which is not the element of
fluidity ?
Answer as m § 721.
[Modes ofform.]
[726] What is that form which is lightness of form ?
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.
[727] What is that form which is not lightness of form ?
The sphere of vision . . . and bodily nutriment—this is
that form which is not lightness of form.
[728-731] Questions on the other two modes of form
'
plasticity ' and *
wieldiness ' are answered hy the descrip-
tions given in §§ 640, 641. The corresj)onding contradictory
terms are described in the same terms as in § 727, viz, : as
in § 596, ivith the omissions and insertion as indicated on
p, 216, n. 5.
[Evolution of form.]
[732] What is that form which is the integration of
form?
That which is accumulation of form is the integration
of form—this is that form which is, etc.
[733] What is that form which is not the integration of
form ?


The sphere of vision . . . and bodily nutriment—this is
that form which is not, etc.
[734-737] Questions on the '
subsistence,' '
decay,' and
'
impermanence ' of form and their contradictories are
ansivered analogously icith those in the group on '
Modes
of form,' the three positives being described as in §§ 642-645.
[Nutrition.]
[740] What is that form which is bodily nutriment ?
This is answered as in § 646.
[741] What is that form which is not bodily nutriment ?
The sphere of vision . . . and the impermanence of
form—this is that form which is not bodily nutriment.
Such are the Categories of Form under Dual Aspects.
[End of] the Exposition of the Pairs.

Dhamma-Sangani - FORM - Categories of Form under Dual aspects—positive and negative II

A BUDDHIST MANUAL
Psychological Ethics,
FROM THE PALI
OF THE
DHAMMA-SANGANI

Translated by CAROLINE A. F. RHYS DAVIDS, M.A.

[629] What is that form which is the sphere of taste ?
That taste which is derived from the four Great Phe-
nomena, is invisible and produces impact, such as the
taste of roots, stems, bark, leaves, flowers, fruits, of sour,
sweet,^ bitter,^ pungent,^ saline,^ alkaline,^ acrid,^ astring-
ent,^ nice and nauseous sapids,^ or whatever other taste
there is, derived from the four Great Phenomena, invisible
and producing impact — such tastes, invisible and pro-
ducing impact, as with the tongue, invisible and reacting,
one has tasted, tastes, will, or may taste . . .
[630] . . . against which taste, invisible and producing
impact, the tongue, invisible and impingeing, has impinged,
impinges, will, or may impinge . . .
[631] ... a taste which, invisible and producing impact,
has impinged, impinges, will, or may impinge on the
tongue, invisible and reacting ...
[632] ... in consequence of which taste and depending
•on the tongue, there has arisen, arises, will, or may arise
gustatory contact . . .
^ Buttermilk (takkambilam) is given as a typical
sour sapid, ghee from cow's milk (gosappi) as the type
of a sweet sapid. But, adds the Cy., sweet added to
astringent (kasavam) and kept standing will lose all its
sweetness, and so with raw sugar and alkaline substance.
Ghee, however, kept standing, while it loses colour and
smell, does not lose its taste. It therefore is the absolute
sweet (ekanta-madhuram) (Asl. 320).
^ E.g., as nimb-tree fruit {ibid.).
^ E.g., as ginger and pepper {ibid.).
* E.g., as sea-salt (ibid.).
^ E.g., as the egg-plant (vatinganakatiram), or as
green palm sprouts (cocoanut cabbage) (ibid.).
^ E.g., as the jujube, or the Feronia elejphantum, etc. (ibid.).
''
E.g., as the yellow myrobalan (haritakam). I am,
as before, indebted to Childers' Dictionary for all this
botanical knowledge.
^ Sadu asadu. See § 625, n. 1.


. . . and^ . . . born of that gustatory contact,
a feeling . . .
[or] a perception . . .
[or] thinking . . .
[or] gustatory cognition,
[further] having a taste as its object and depending on the
tongue, there has arisen, arises, will, or may arise
gustatory contact,
. . . and . . . born of that gustatory contact,
a feeling . . .
[o7'] a perception . . .
[or] thinking ...
[or] gustatory cognition
;
this that is taste, the sphere and constituent element of
taste—this is that form which is the sphere of taste.''^
[633] What is that form which is femininity (it thin
-
driyam) ?
That which is of the female, feminine in appearance,
feminine in characteristics, in occupation, in deportment,
feminine in condition and being—this is that form which
constitutes femininity.^
1 See § 624, n.
2 For the sphere of the tangible, see below, § 648.
^ Literally the in driyam—the faculty, potentiality of
the female. Under 'appearance,' which the Cy. (321)
rules to be here the import of lingam ( = santhanam,
cf. Mil. 133, 134), he indicates the physical proportions
in which the woman, generally speaking, differs from the
man—smaller hands, feet, and face, upper trunk less
broad, lower trunk broader. Characteristics (nimittam)
are that by which she is recognisable (sanj ananam), both
external bodily marks (no beard, e.g., nor tusks, which
would seem to include certain animals) and modes of
dressing. Under 'occupation' (kuttam = kiriya) there
is an allusion to girls' distinctive amusements—playing
with baskets, pestles [and mortars], and dolls (? literally,
little daughters, dhitalikaya kllanti), and spinning
thread with a mattikavakam, whatever that may be.
Under 'deportment,' the 'absence of breadth' (a visa-


[634] What is that form which is masculinity (purisin-
driyam)?
That which is of the male, masculine in appearance,
masculine in characteristics, in occupation, in deportment,
masculine in condition and being—this is that form which
constitutes masculinity.^
dam) in women's walking, standing, sitting, lying, and
eating is specified, all these being done more mincingly,
less assertively by women. If a man so deport himself, it
is said of him, '
He goes like a woman !' The *
condition
and being '
of the female, constituting her essential nature,
are '
born of karma, and take their source at conception.'
The other female characteristics are evolved by her '
poten-
tiality '
in the course of existence, just as the tree with all
its appurtenances is evolved in time from the seed. This
'
indriyam ' is discernible, not by the eye, but by the mind
(mano. It is an abstract idea). And it is not to the one
sex just what the faculties of sight and so forth are to the
other.
^ The priority of place given to the female is a form of
statement as characteristically Buddhist (not to say Indian)
as that of saying '
moon and sun.' Both no doubt have
their source very deep in the history, or prehistory, of
humanity. The Commentator gives the correlative oppo-
sites in describing male characteristics, down to the
'
swash-buckling and martial air,' which if a woman affect
she is said to '
go like a man.' Boys are said to occupy
themselves with their characteristic games of playing at
carriages and ploughs, and at making sand-banks round
puddles and calling them reservoirs.
He then remarks that these sexual distinctions have
been evolved during the course of life in primeval ages ;
since when, originating by way of conception and, some of
them, in the individual life, it happens that they get inter-
changed. He then quotes cases of hermaphroditism, said
to have occurred in the members of the Order.
He is mindful also, as we might expect, to appreciate
the sex to which he belongs, and makes a curious applica-
tion to it of the doctrine of karma. '
Of the two, the male
sex-marks are superior (uttamam), those of the female
inferior (hinam). Therefore the former disappear by
means of a very bad karma, while the latter are established


[635] What is that form which is vitality (jivitin-
driyam) ?
The persistence of these corporeal states, their sub-
sistence, their going on, their being kept going on, their
progress, continuance, preservation, life, life as faculty
—
this is that form which is vitality.^
[636] What is that form which is bodily intimation
(kaya vinnatti) ?
That tension, that intentness, that state of making the
body^ 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—th^'s is that form
which constitutes bodily intimation.^
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, find-
ing 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 con-
nexion with the faculty of vitality as related to incorporeal
(formless) states '
(Ask 323. See § 19).
'^
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).
^ Kayavinfiatti 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
(vacivinnatti)?
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.^
[638] What is that form which is the element of space
(akasa-dhatu)?
That which is space and belongs to space, is sky aijd
*
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 (abhinila cittam).
The twelve bad thoughts (§§ 365-430).
The eight great kiriy a -thoughts,
the two limited kiriy a-thoughts,
the one kiriy a-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' (dvara-
katha). See my Introduction. (Asl. 323-4.)
^Vacivinnatti is dealt with verbatim as bodily in-
timation 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 Buddha-
ghosa, 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,^ 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
(rupassalahuta) ?^
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 ?
^ Buddhaghosa's etymology (Asl. 325) derives akaso
from '
unploughed'—what may not be ploughed, cut, or
broken—which recalls Homer's arpvyeTo<; aWrjp and arpu-
yeTT) ddXaaaa as well as the aKapirLo-ra Trehia 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 mani-
fest. Through it, in forms thus bounded, we get the
notions—hence above, hence below, hence across.
^ Asamphuttham catuhi mahabhiitehi. 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 Eilhulovada Sutta (M. i.
423), when Gotama is discoursing to his son of the distri-
bution of the elements in the composition of the human
body, he co-ordinates akasadhatu with the four other
dhatus, to all appearance as though it should rank as a
fifth element. In the older Upanishads it is usually co-
ordinated 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 aka^a^
the rest, taken in order, from each other.
The word asamphuttham is paraphrased by nijjata-
kam (or nissatam), and may mean that space does not
commingle with the four elements as they with each other.
'
Belongs to ' is, in the Pali, -gat am.
^ 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 (Asl. 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.^
[642] What is that form which is the integration (u p a-
c a y o) of form ?
That which is accumulation of form is the integration of
form^—this is that form which is the integration of form.
[643] What is that form which is the subsistence of
form (riipassa 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 jarata)?
That decay of form which is ageing, decrepitude, hoari-
ness, wrinkles, the shrinkage in length of days, the hyper-
maturity of faculties—this is that form which is the decay
of form.^
^ Gold which is suddhanta (? sudhanta, well-blown)
is given as typically '
wieldy '
material (ihicL).
^ Buddhaghosa evidently reads so rupassa upacayo
here (for yo), and in the next section sa rupassa (for ya)
(Asl. 827). This is only adopted by the text in §§ 732,
733. K. reads so and sa.
This and the following section formularize the cominj:^
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 v add hi, fulness of growth. Acayo,
or nibbatti, is to upacayo or vaddhi 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).
^ 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.^
[646] What is that form which is bodily (solid) nutriment
(kabalinkaro aharo)?^
Boiled rice, sour gruel, flour, fish, flesh, milk, curds,
butter, cheese, tila-oil, cane-syrup, or whatever else^ 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.
^ 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 nutri-
ments. See p. 30.
^ 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 physio-
logical truth is humorously illustrated. Whereas, he says
(Asl. 330-332), food is here first set out in terms of its
embodiment, in o j a we have the evolved essence of it. Now
whereas the former removes risk, the latter is a preserva-
tive. 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 some-
thing 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.


beings are kept alive—this is that form which is bodily
nutriment.
[All] this is form which is derived.
[End of] the Section on Derivatives. First Portion for
Eecitation in the Division on Form.
[' There is form which is not derived '
(no upada)].
[647] What is that form which is not derived ?i
The sphere of the tangible, the fluid element—this is
that form which is not derived.
[648] What is that form which is the sphere of the
tangible (photthabbayatanam)?
The earthy (solid) element, the lambent (calorific)
element, the gaseous (aerial) element'^ ; the hard and the
When other men come to help, the demon, quitting his
hold, preys on them.
In the case of coarse food, e.^., kudrusa grain, oja is
said to be weak and sustains but a short time, while if a
man drink ghee and the like he wants no other meal the
whole day. Living beings are then classified in an order
of increasing fineness in the food they live on, beginning
with crocodiles, who, they say, swallow pebbles, continuing
with peacocks, hyenas, and elephants, later with other
birds, then with borderers, town-dwellers, kings, and
ending with the Yama and Paranimmitavasavatti gods,
who enjoy food of supreme delicacy.
^ *
Just as derived form is derived in such and such a
way and in no other, so, to say it is not derived, is equi-
valent to saying it is not derivable.' Asl. 333.
Possibly the form of negative here employed (no up a da)
is a technical mark of the relatively unethical nature
of this aspect of r up am. An up a da, on the other hand,
is used with a philosophical import. Cf. D. i. 17 with
M. i. 148—anupada vimutto and anupada parinib-
banattham. See also below, §§ 1210 and 1213.
^ In keeping with the general psychological standpoint
of the present work, the things which are not derived jrom
(have no foothold or support in) other things are considered


soft ; the smooth and the rough ; pleasant (easeful) con-
tact, painful contact ; the heavy and the light^—such a
tangible, invisible and producing impact,^ as, with the
under the aspect of sense-percepts. They are tangibles or
intangibles. Element (dhatu) is now substituted for the
collective term used above, namely, great phenomena or
beings (mahabhutani, § 584 et seq. Both terms occur
together in A. i. 222. The latter term may be used to
denote great or wondrous derivatives of the four elements,
great either physically or ethically, as when (Vin. ii. 240)
the ocean and its '
great creatures ' serve to illustrate the
Dhamma and those wondrous phenomena, the human
beings who by way of it are seeking or have attained Nir-
vana. Dhatu, on the other hand, as the Cy. with un-
flagging '
mindfulness ' once more points out, indicates
absence of substratum or soul. Asl. 332.
On the essential characters of the four elements, see
below, §§ 962-965, also the following note.
^ The first two and last of these four pairs are so many
aspects or modes of the earth-element (Asl. 332), and are
paraphrased respectively as rigid and non-rigid, polished
and jagged (saw-like), weighty and non-weighty. These
correspond almost exactly to our modern view of the modes
of resistance, ^.6^, of active touch, or of skin-sensibility with
a co-efficient of muscular sense. The Buddhist view lacks,
as all but recent psychology has lacked, insight into the
presence of the muscular factor ; on the other hand, it is
logically more symmetrical in giving *
lightness ' where
Dr. Bain, e.g., gives 'pressure'—another positive.
Pleasant contact is defined as a tangible which is desired
on account of pleasant feeling; the opposite, in the case of
painful contact. Each of the three elements furnishes
instances of either : In connexion with solidity there is the
pleasant contact felt when a soft-palmed attendant is doing
massage to one's feet, and the opposite when his hands are
hard. Erom '
caloric,' or the flame-element, we may get
the pleasure of a warming-pan in winter, or the reverse, if
it is applied in summer. From the aerial element, we may
get the pleasure of fanning in summer, or the discomfort
of it in winter. Asl. 332, 333.
'
The Cy. here discusses a point of attention in sense-
perception which is interesting as adumbrating modern


body-sensibility, invisible and reacting, one has touched,
touches, will, or may touch . . .
[649] . . . against which tangible, invisible, and pro-
ducing impact, the body-sensibility, invisible and reacting,
has impinged, impinges, will, or may impinge . . .
[650] . . . such a tangible, invisible and producing
impact, as has impinged, impinges, will, or may impinge
against the body-sensibility, invisible and reacting . . .
European theories respecting consciousness and subcon-
sciousness (Asl. 333). In a concrete object of sense, the
three modes of the tangible, i.e,, the three elements (solid,
hot, airy), may all of them be present. Now do they all
come *
at one stroke ' into the field of consciousness
(apatham)? They do. Thus come, do they impinge on
the body- sense ? They do. When it has thus made them
a (mental) object, does cognition of body arise at one blow?
It does not. Why? Thus: Mental objects are made
either by deliberate sensing or by intrusion. (The latter
term—ussado—is more literally extrusion, or prominence,
but either word shows that involuntary, as contrasted with
voluntary attention is meant.) Now when one is de-
liberately testing the hardness or softness of a ball of boiled
rice by pressure, heat and vapour are present, but it is the
solid to which one gives attention. If hot water be tested
by the hand, though there is solid and vaporous (matter),
it is heat that occupies the attention. If one lets the
breeze blow on the body at the window in hot weather,
solid and heat are present, but it is the aerial element that
is attended to. Or take involuntary impressions : If you
stumble, or knock your head against, a tree, or bite on a
pebble, heat and wind are present, but the intrusive object
is solid matter. So analogously for walking on something
hot, or being deafened by a hurricane. The three elements
are not apprehended as such at the same instant. And
with regard to the extended surface of the body-sentience,
cognition of body arises only in that spot where the
sentient surface is impinged upon, e.g., when a shoulder-
wound is bathed (? dressed ; cf. Vin. ii. 115 and Transl.)
with a quill, the kaya-pasado of the shoulder is impinged
upon, or intensified, and there cognition arises. And where
the pasado is most powerfully impressed, there cognition
arises first.


[651] ... in consequence of which tangible and depend-
ing on the body-sensibility, there has arisen, arises, will,
or may arise
bodily contact . . .
and . . . born of that bodily contact,
a feeling ...
[or] a perception . . .
[or] thinking . . .
[or] cognition of body . . .
[further,] having a tangible as its object and depending on
the body(-sensibility), there has arisen, arises, will, or
may arise
bodily contact . . .
and . . . born of that bodily contact,
a feeling . . .
[or] a perception ...
[or] thinking . . .
[or] cognition of body ;
this that is the tangible, the sphere and element of the
tangible—this is that form which is the sphere of the
tangible.^
[652] What is that form which is the fluid (aqueous)
element (apodhatu)?
That which is fluid and belongs to fluid, that which is
^ Buddhaghosa goes on, with reference to the senses
generally, to give a psychological account of the passing
from one group of sensations or '
object of thought ' to
another in terms not far removed from what would now be
used to describe the '
movement of attention '
(Asl. 334).
We pass from one object to another (a) from deliberate
inclination, or (h) from a sensation of preponderating im-
pressiveness (ajjhasayato va visayadhimattato va).
E.g., (a) from saluting a shrine, a believer forms the in-
tention of entering to do homage to a statue and contem-
plate the carvings and paintings, (b) While contemplating
some vast tope, a man is struck by the sound of music, and
is then affected by flowers and incense brought near.


viscid^ and belongs to viscous, the cohesiveness of form^
—this is that form which is the fluid element.
[All] this is that form which is not derived.
[653] What is that form^ which is the issue of grasping
(upadinnam) ?*
^ Literally, oil (sneho). Cf. the description with that
of akasadhatu, § 638.
^ This is the aspect of the moist or liquid element in
an object compact of several elements. The one essential
'mark' of apo-dhatu is paggharanam, flowing. See
§ 963. But '
cohesiveness of form means the cohering
condition of some concrete in which there is superfluity of
solid' (Asl. 335). For it is' by the cohesive force of the
fluid element that lumps of iron or what not are made
rigid. Similarly in the case of stones, mountains, palms,
tusks, horns, etc.
Hence Buddhaghosa passes on to discuss the mutually
related spheres of the elements and their apparent approxi-
mations to each other, as in viscous things, e.g., or con-
gealed liquid, or boiling water. Corrupt MSS., however,
render parts of the disquisition hard to follow. His con-
clusion is that whereas the elements may vary in their
condition as phenomena, their essential mark never alters,
however latent it may be. And he quotes a yet unedited
sutta (Atthanaparikappa sutta), but which is repeated
in A. i. 222, that it is easier for the four elements to change
their essential character, than for the seeker of Nirvana
(the Noble Student) to alter his high estate (Asl. 336).
^ Here follow the remaining pairs of correlated terms,
making up the categories of form under the Dual Aspect.
* Literally, '
which has been grasped at ' or '
laid hold
of.' This and the cognate terms are discussed under the
'
Group on Grasping,' § 1213 et seq. It is disappointing to
find that, with the exception of two items in the list of
things '
grasped at,' or come into being through the action
of karma (the two phrases are approximately equivalent),
the Cy. does not discuss the inclusion of any. One would
have liked to hear, e.g., why, of all sense-objects, sounds
alone are *
not the issue of grasping ' {cf. the heresy con-
cerning sound as result [of karma, K. V. 466], and why the
elements of space and of fluidity may and may not be the


The spheres of sight, hearing, smell, taste, body-sensi-
bility, 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 in-
tegration or the subsistence of form,^ or bodily nutriment
—
this is that form which is the issue of grasping.
[654] What is that form which is not the issue of
grasping ?
The sphere of sound, bodily and vocal intimation, light-
ness, plasticity and wieldiness of form, decay and imper-
manence 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 (upadinn'upada-
niyam) ?
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), Hhat " 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 classi-
fied 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 grasp-
ing, but is favourable to grasping (anupadinn' upada-
niyam) ?^
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 subsis-
tence 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.^
^ The privative prefixed to the first half of this dvandva-
compound does not apply to the latter half. All form is
upadaniyam—see § 595 and t/. 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
anupadinnanupiidaniyani as in § 992.
^ I have elided saddayatanam, and, on the next line,
inserted apodhatu, as consistent with § 654. C/. §§ 747,
750, and K.
^ 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 impinges^
(sappatigham) ?
The spheres of vision, hearing, smell, taste, body-sensi-
bility ; 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 or
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, hear-
ing, 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 sen-
sation, or as abstract ideas, are inaccessible to sight. Even
in kabalinkaro aharo, it is only the vatthu, or em-
bodiment 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 con-
struction.
^ 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 reac-
tion, 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 re-
pulsion, repugnance. See § 1060.
^ § 596 would seem to be divided also and differently by
the indriyam sections. What is na indriyarn, not
having hvva^i^, 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 fluidity
—
this is that form which is Great Phenomenon.
[664] What is that form which is not Great Pheno-
menon ?
The sphere of vision . . . and bodily nutriment—this is
that form which is not Great Phenomenon.^
[665] What is that form which is intimation (vinnatti)?
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)^ ?
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 con-
cerning the other relative will presumably be the entire
list given in § 596, with the exception of the two modes of
intimation.
3 Cf. 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, throw-
ing 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 intelli-
gent 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 nutriment
—
this 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-bhu)?
[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 (cittanuparivatti)?
[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 under-
stood 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.