(Sarnath: Sakya Students' Union, 1974), p. 170. "The
　　   form and variety of natures  (dharma) are posited as
　　   different by dint of sa.mj~naa (notions, ideas), but
　　   not  by reason  of the own-form  (svaruupa) of given
　　   things (vastu)--because  all of them being illusory,
　　   it is not possible to distinguish their own-forms."

　　　　  60.  Matilal, Epistemology,  Logic, and Grammar,
　　   pp. 162-167.

　　　　  61.  Frits Staal, Exploring  Mysticism  (London:
　　   Penguin Books, 1975), pp.  45-47; hereafter cited as
　　   Staal, Exploring Mysticism.

　　　　  62.   Confer,  Dhirendra  Sharma,  The  Negative
　　   Dialectics of India (Leiden: E. J.  Brill, 1970), p.
　　   94;  note where the example illustrates the Vedaanta
　　   authority　　 (pramaa.na)　　 caalled　　 'presumption'
　　   (arthaapatti).

　　　　  63.  For Naagaarjuna's classification of the two
　　   members, nos.  2 and 10, as karma, see, for example,
　　   A. Wayman, "Buddhist Dependent Origination," History
　　   of Religions 10, no. 3 (Feb., 1971):188. I have gone
　　   much  more into  the cause  and effect  (hetu-phala)
　　   side  of the  formula  in my forthcoming  "Dependent
　　   Origination--the  Indo-Tibetan  Tradition," (special
　　   issue of Journal of Chinese Philosophy).

　　　　  64. Staal, Exploring Mysticism, p.47.

　　　　  65. La Vallee Poussin, Muulamadhyamakakaarikaas,
　　   pp. 263.5 to 264.4.