rūpa, ṣaḍāyatana, sparśa, vedanā, tṛṣṇā, upādāna and the bhava (leading to another life) of the present actual life. This bhava produces the jāti and jarāmaraṇa of the next life1.

It is interesting to note that these twelve links in the chain extending in three sections over three lives are all but the manifestations of sorrow to the bringing in of which they naturally determine one another. Thus Abhidhammatthasangaha says "each of these twelve terms is a factor. For the composite term 'sorrow,' etc. is only meant to show incidental consequences of birth. Again when 'ignorance' and 'the actions of the mind' have been taken into account, craving (tṛṣṇā), grasping (upādāna) and (karma) becoming (bhava) are implicitly accounted for also. In the same manner when craving, grasping and (karma) becoming have been taken into account, ignorance and the actions of the mind are (implicitly) accounted for, also; and when birth, decay, and death are taken into account, even the fivefold fruit, to wit (rebirth), consciousness, and the rest are accounted for. And thus:

Five causes in the Past and Now a fivefold 'fruit.'

Five causes Now and yet to come a fivefold 'fruit' make up the Twenty Modes, the Three Connections (1. sankhāra and viññāna, 2. vedanā and taṇhā, 3. bhava and jāti) and the four groups (one causal group in the Past, one resultant group in the Present, one causal group in the Present and one resultant group in the Future, each group consisting of five modes)"."

These twelve interdependent links (dvādasanga) represent the paticcasamuppāda (pratītyasamutpāda) doctrines (dependent origination) which are themselves but sorrow and lead to cycles of sorrow. The term pațiccasamuppāda or pratītyasamutpāda has been differently interpreted in later Buddhist literature‘.

1 This explanation probably cannot be found in the early Pāli texts; but Buddhaghoșa mentions it in Sumangalaviläsini on Mahānidāna suttanta. We find it also in Abhidhammatthasangaha, VIII. 3. Ignorance and the actions of the mind belong to the past; "birth," "decay and death" to the future; the intermediate eight to the present. It is styled as trikāṇḍaka (having three branches) in Abhidharmakośa, III. 20-24. Two in the past branch, two in the future and eight in the middle “sa pratityasamut pãdo dvādaśāngastrikāṇḍakaḥ pūrvāparāntayordve dve madhyeṣṭau.”

2 Aung and Mrs Rhys Davids' translation of Abhidhammatthasangaha, pp. 189-190. The twelve links are not always constant. Thus in the list given in the Dialogues of the Buddha, 11. 23 f., avijjā and sankhāra have been omitted and the start has been made with consciousness, and it has been said that "Cognition turns back from name and form; it goes not beyond."

4 M. V. p. 5 f.

Samutpāda means appearance or arising (prādurbhāva) and pratitya means after getting (prati+i+ya); combining the two we find, arising after getting (something). The elements, depending on which there is some kind of arising, are called hetu (cause) and paccaya (ground). These two words however are often used in the same sense and are interchangeable. But paccaya is also used in a specific sense. Thus when it is said that avijjā is the paccaya of sankhāra it is meant that avijjā is the ground (thiti) of the origin of the sankhāras, is the ground of their movement, of the instrument through which they stand (nimittaṭṭhiti), of their ayuhana (conglomeration), of their interconnection, of their intelligibility, of their conjoint arising, of their function as cause and of their function as the ground with reference to those which are determined by them. Avijjā in all these nine ways is the ground of sankhāra both in the past and also in the future, though avijjā itself is determined in its turn by other grounds'. When we take the hetu aspect of the causal chain, we cannot think of anything else but succession, but when we take the paccaya aspect we can have a better vision into the nature of the cause as ground. Thus when avijjā is said to be the ground of the sankhāras in the nine ways mentioned above, it seems reasonable to think that the sankhāras were in some sense regarded as special manifestations of avijjā. But as this point was not further developed in the early Buddhist texts it would be unwise to proceed further with it.

The Khandhas.

The word khandha (Skr. skandha) means the trunk of a tree and is generally used to mean group or aggregate3. We have seen that Buddha said that there was no ātman (soul). He said that when people held that they found the much spoken of soul, they really only found the five khandhas together or any one of them. The khandhas are aggregates of bodily and psychical states which are immediate with us and are divided into five 1 See Patisambhidāmagga, vol. I. p. 50; see also Majjhima Nikāya, 1. 67, saṁkhārā...avijjānidānā avijjāsamudayā avijjājātikā avijjāpabhavā.

2 In the Yoga derivation of asmitā (egoism), rāga (attachment), dveṣa (antipathy) and abhiniveśa (self love) from avidyä we find also that all the five are regarded as the five special stages of the growth of avidyā (pañcaparvā avidyā).

3 The word skandha is used in Chandogya, II. 23 (trayo dharmaskandhāḥ yajñaḥ adhyayanam dānam) in the sense of branches and in almost the same sense in Maitri,

VII. II.

classes: (1) rūpa (four elements, the body, the senses), sense data, etc., (2) vedanā (feeling-pleasurable, painful and indifferent), (3) saññā (conceptual knowledge), (4) sankhāra (synthetic mental states and the synthetic functioning of compound sense-affections, compound feelings and compound concepts), (5) viññāna (consciousness)'.

All these states rise depending one upon the other (paticcasamuppanna) and when a man says that he perceives the self he only deludes himself, for he only perceives one or more of these. The word rūpa in rūpakhandha stands for matter and material qualities, the senses, and the sense data. But "rūpa" is also used in the sense of pure organic affections or states of mind as we find in the Khandha Yamaka, I. p. 16, and also in Samyutta Nikaya, III. 86. Rūpaskandha according to Dharmasamgraha means the aggregate of five senses, the five sensations, and the implicatory communications associated in sense perceptions (vijñapti).

The elaborate discussion of Dhammasangani begins by defining rupa as "cattaro ca mahābhūtā catunnañca mahābhūtānam upādāya rūpam" (the four mahābhūtas or elements and that proceeding from the grasping of that is called rupa). Buddhaghosa explains it by saying that rūpa means the four mahabhūtas and those which arise depending (nissāya) on them as a modification of them. In the rūpa the six senses including their affections are also included. In explaining why the four elements are called mahābhūtas, Buddhaghosa says: "Just as a magician (māyākāra) makes the water which is not hard appear as hard, makes the stone which is not gold appear as gold; just as he himself though not a ghost nor a bird makes himself appear as a ghost or a bird, so these elements though not themselves blue make themselves appear as blue (nīlam upādā rūpam), not yellow, red, or white make themselves appear as yellow, red or white (odatam upādārūpam), so on account of their similarity to the appearances created by the magician they are called mahābhūta."

In the Samyutta Nikaya we find that the Buddha says, "O Bhikkhus it is called rūpam because it manifests (rūpyati); how

1 Samyutta Nikāya, III. 86, etc.

2 Abhidhammatthasangaha, J. P. T. S. 1884, p. 27 ff.

3 Dhammasangani, pp. 124-179.

Atthasālinī, p. 299.

does it manifest? It manifests as cold, and as heat, as hunger and as thirst, it manifests as the touch of gnats, mosquitos, wind, the sun and the snake; it manifests, therefore it is called rūpa1."

If we take the somewhat conflicting passages referred to above for our consideration and try to combine them so as to understand what is meant by rūpa, I think we find that that which manifested itself to the senses and organs was called rūpa. No distinction seems to have been made between the sense-data as colours, smells, etc., as existing in the physical world and their appearance as sensations. They were only numerically different and the appearance of the sensations was dependent upon the sense-data and the senses but the sense-data and the sensations were "rūpa." Under certain conditions the sense-data were followed by the sensations. Buddhism did not probably start with the same kind of division of matter and mind as we now do. And it may not be out of place to mention that such an opposition and duality were found neither in the Upaniṣads nor in the Samkhya system which is regarded by some as pre-Buddhistic. The four elements manifested themselves in certain forms and 'were therefore called rūpa; the forms of affection that appeared were also called rūpa; many other mental states or features which appeared with them were also called rupa. The ayatanas or the senses were also called rūpa3. The mahābhūtas or four elements were themselves but changing manifestations, and they together with all that appeared in association with them were called rūpa and formed the rūpa khandha (the classes of sensematerials, sense-data, senses and sensations).

In Samyutta Nikaya (III. 101) it is said that "the four mahābhūtas were the hetu and the paccaya for the communication of the rūpakkhandha (rūpakkhandhassa paññāpanāya). Contact (sense-contact, phassa) is the cause of the communication of feelings (vedana); sense-contact was also the hetu and paccaya for the communication of the saññākkhandha; sense-contact is also the hetu and paccaya for the communication of the sankhārakkhandha. But nāmarūpa is the hetu and the paccaya for the communication of the viññānakkhandha." Thus not only feelings arise on account of the sense-contact but saññā and sankhāra also arise therefrom. Saññā is that where specific knowing or 2 Khandhayamaka.

1 Samyutta Nikaya, 111. 86.
3 Dhammasangani, p. 124 ff.

conceiving takes place. This is the stage where the specific distinctive knowledge as the yellow or the red takes place.

Mrs Rhys Davids writing on sañña says: "In editing the second book of the Abhidhamma piṭaka I found a classification distinguishing between saññā as cognitive assimilation on occasion of sense, and saññā as cognitive assimilation of ideas by way of naming. The former is called perception of resistance, or opposition (patigha-saññā). This, writes Buddhaghosa, is perception on occasion of sight, hearing, etc., when consciousness is aware of the impact of impressions; of external things as different, we might say. The latter is called perception of the equivalent word or name (adhivachana-saññā) and is exercised by the sensus communis (mano), when e.g. 'one is seated...and asks another who is thoughtful: "What are you thinking of?" one perceives through his speech.' Thus there are two stages of saññā-consciousness, I. contemplating sense-impressions, 2. ability to know what they are by naming1."

About sankhara we read in Samyutta Nikaya (III. 87) that it is called sankhara because it synthesises (abhisankharonti), it is that which conglomerated rūpa as rūpa, conglomerated saññā as saññā, sankhāra as sankhāra and consciousness (viññāna) as consciousness. It is called sankhara because it synthesises the conglomerated (sankhatam abhisankharonti). It is thus a synthetic function which synthesises the passive rupa, saññā, sankhāra and viññāna elements. The fact that we hear of 52 sankhāra states and also that the sankhāra exercises its synthetic activity on the conglomerated elements in it, goes to show that probably the word sankhāra is used in two senses, as mental states and as synthetic activity.

Viññāna or consciousness meant according to Buddhaghosa, as we have already seen in the previous section, both the stage at which the intellectual process started and also the final resulting consciousness.

Buddhaghosa in explaining the process of Buddhist psychology, says that "consciousness (citta) first comes into touch (phassa) with its object (ārammana) and thereafter feeling, conception (saññā) and volition (cetana) come in. This contact is like the pillars of a palace, and the rest are but the superstructure built upon it (dabbasambhārasadisa). But it should not be thought that contact

1 Buddhist Psychology, PP. 49, 50.