It depends on form to be definable,
Its definability requires some form.
Without form it still remains dependent on form.
Form is forming and somehow the dependence is
less acute.
In both cases there is no requirement,
But does the requirement for a thought
Defining it, require the appearance of form?
If something has no form is it something that one cannot explain, it can be described but only in a pointing sort of way. But this explaining in a “pointing sort of way” means that it has some sort of form. So in terms of thought there is a requirement for some form, but independently this requirement doesn’t exist. With the knowledge of the grasping nature of thought, which is our dependence on form, we can see the process or origin of the dependence of form, on us giving it content (even if there is none!)
