Book, Paragraph

 1   I, 5 |         he grows, viz. not the food? Then why have not both "
 2   I, 5 |      of the other (viz. of the food) does not. For indeed, even
 3   I, 5 |      is in these. No doubt the food, which has come in, may
 4   I, 5 |        after having come in, a food is converted into wind),
 5   I, 5 |  efficient cause is not in the food.~We have now developed the
 6   I, 5 |    something, which is called "food" and is said to be "contrary"
 7   I, 5 |     the transformation of this food into the same form as that
 8   I, 5 |       flesh (and grown) by the food. In what way, then, has
 9   I, 5 |        what way, then, has the food been modified by the growing
10   I, 5 |       lays hold of an acceding food which is potentially flesh
11   I, 5 |     actual flesh. The acceding food, therefore, must be together
12   I, 5 |        so far as this acceding food is potentially the double
13   I, 7 |      being healed. But (b) the food, in acting, is itself in
14   I, 7 | originative source", while the food corresponds to "the last" (
15   I, 10|      speak neither (ii) of the food as "combining" with the
16  II, 8 |   seems to be furnished by the food each compound takes. For
17  II, 8 |      before watering. Although food is akin to the matter, that