Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • The Tarkabhasa PDF

    Uploaded by

    Manoj
    147 views247 pages

    Original Title

    The-Tarkabhasa.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    147 views247 pages

    The Tarkabhasa PDF

    Uploaded by

    Manoj

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 247
    PREFACE ‘This edition of the Tarkabhisn as specially prepared with a ‘view to meet the needs of students studying for University exa- mioations The Enghsh Translation of the entire text hag been printed yast below 1{ for ready reference Inthe Notes all ponte which an ordinary student requires to be explained ate explained, The notes are tothe point and sufficiently exhaustive The Intro. duction deals with questions hike the date and Life of the author, 4 general review of the Nyaya and Vaisesuka systems 9 oritt cal appreciation of the Tarkabhasa ete Care 19 taken det fo swell the volume of tha book by the addition of irrelevant matter or by the inclusion of unnecessary details which be wilder the student istead of helping nim This edition is thug on the came Wes as those which wa followed in our edttion of the Tathisamgraha which we aro fled to state met with unstinted approval from tha students ind brofesgors alike inthe Notes is incorporated most of the im portant matter from tha Tarkassingrsba The text ts divided Into suitable sections and 1s presented ma form whish would ‘rable ths student to grasp the subject matter easily We bave to offer our grateftl thanks to the Manvgers of the Aryabbussus Press for tha efficient printing work done in a chort time Sir Pareshurambho College } ABG Poo 20th fone: 1934 RDE INTRODUCTION nha I THE AUTHOR HIS LITE AND DATE Beyond the fact that the name of tha suthor of the Tarka- bhasa is Kesayamisra, we pave no definite knowledges about the author Dr Satis Chandra Vidyabhusans saya that Kesava Misra " was a natrva of Mithila and a preceptor of Govardhana Misra who wrote a commentary on the Tarkabhasa, called Tarkabhas: Prakisa’’ Kesavamisra quotes Udayana in bis work® from which it 1s clear that he must have lived after Udayana Now Udayana (or Udayanacarya or Acarya as he is often reverentially called), the author of the well known works, Rugumafizah, Kiranavali, Lsksanavall ete , 1s defintely known to have lived about 950-1000 AD, as is clear from the colophon to hid Lakeanavall which gives 984 A DB ( Saka year 906 } as the date of its composition Sa Kessvamisra could not have lived before 1000 A D Now, Cinnabhiatta a commentator on the Tarkabhass 16 definitely proved to have lived about 1350 A LC, by Sirk G Bhandarkar? Cionabhatta lnved about 1350 A D at the court of Harthars, brefher to Buksaraya of Vayayanagar, and was thus the contemporary of the famous Sayanacarya and Madbava* carys, so Keaayamista’s date could not be Jater than 1350 A D The most probable date for Kesavamista therefore would be abont 1250.4 D About Kesavamista a personal history we Know nothing Whether he wrote any other work or works 1s algo a sealed book for the present, ILNYAYA AND VAISESIKA SYSTEMS The student of a manual like tha Tarkabhaca is certaloly Tt expected to be acquainted with tha history of the develop- () A Bistory of Indian Logie, P 381 (2) P 104, oeirgtte aones BA orsdea eY4 Hrgganseigh a fergeremraeTs | (3) Reports on Sansknit Manoseripts, 1882-83 ” Introduction to Tarkabhist ment of the Nydya and Vatsesika systems But it is worth tug while to know fhe galjent features thereof Both these systems originated andependently about the beginning of the Christian era but it was found scon afterwards that ther tenets had nothing irreconcilable about them, and long before writers like Sividtiya came into the field expressly for the purpose of blending the tuo systems the Nyiya and the Vaisesika sys- tems had come to be grouped together, like the Simkhya and ‘Yoga systems Lake all other Darsanas ox systems of philosophy, the yaya and Vatsesika systems have their own Sutras which must he regarded as the basis of their docirines The Vaisestka system is also known as the svstem of Kanada or Auluka (son of Uluka} Kanada (probably a nick name due to his having propounded the theory of Kansas or atoms) was the son of Uluka, of Kasyana ectra He 1s said to have beet so called { Kanada or Kanabhahss ), beeause he maintained himself on rice grainsfsilen m streets hkaapigeon According to another tradition God revesled himself to Kanada who was practising penance, in the form of an owl to expoutid the six Padarthas, hence the system received the name Aulukyadarsana Kautilya does not mention the Vaisesikas by name, but Nagarjuna and Aryadeva (shout the 3rd century A D ) criticise therr doctrines The Vaisesikasutras may therefore be said to have been com- posed about the firet or second century A D It 18 possible that these Sutras may have been revised from time to tims, before they assumed their present form, There is no Atomic theory 1m the Upanisads, though the word Anu occurs many times Tho Bavddhas had somethimg of an Atomic theory and the Vaisesikas may have been mdebted to them for that doctrine There 1s no direet evidenca to show thatthe Vasesikss had come under Grae influence 1 the beginning Asregards the Nyaya system, Gautama is sail to be the suthor of the Nyayasutras In the Pratimanataka of Bhass, the Nyayasastra of Medhatithi 3s referred to According to the Mababhatats Gautama and Medbatith: refer to fhe samo person Dr Satis Chandra Vidyabhusana regards this Medha- ‘ota Grecverma as the Tounder of Anviksiki, and thus quite a AT Nytisa and 1 avgesria systems uit of its qualities, perhaps ghata may still be lteown cause as welk! To this the siddhantin replies } The jar, for the matter of that (fu) [ is} not tht cause with reference to the jar owing to the absence of the relation of priority and posteriority in one and the same Jobject) Not surely [can j the same {jar} be existing before and existing after itself Gwing to [ its} existing befora its qualities however, [it { becomes the intimate cause of fits {qualities 7 ReAniaanqeg . aed Wa Naa aot UdisaIgG eareElqRERas yA He Hed ago aTAZAl wEyZUT EVA | aT TET 4 Soa AT AT 1 Qoreayi Req ae FIBA VATA! Tae ah yragaNl aa afe aa a Yas TATA ata + aH a ouiteaaasia Haar wat naraaredaia +< frm wy seni uz saad Bdtakeadig wan gee a 2uH AT MOTTA IA | ARATRIT FET fet agequiina | daar qa) Gea Tas DMs AATATS WZ SMe OFA RUOTE | r TMM RA ALTA | TEAR aaa T say,~-such being the case the yar at the first moment would be invisible owing to ats being [at that time] a sub- stance youd of colour, like air Tor, that substance alone {is} visuble, which [1s] pesvessed of a developed colour, the dimension bemg Iurge And further [the jar] would be no substance, owing to the absence of being & substratum of qualities Substance [19] the substratum of qualities this [1s} the definition of a substonce [The siddhantin replies }True{ what you say] [ Bat Jaf the jar at the | frst moment bemg extremely subtile, 1 not apprebe nded by the eye, what then (us{ the loss for us? Not indeed, even according {o the theory of the production { of the jar] with qualittes, 1s the Jar apprehended in the time of the winking of the eye So (rt 1s] well established that the jar yest voud of qualities 1s first produced {and] appre- hended by the eye during the second abd following moments Again, there would not be the {undessable| consequence that the yay} on account of the absence of hetng atubstratum of quahties at tho first moment would pe no substance, owing to the appliestion of the [following } definition of a sub- stance-—anbetance [ts] an intimate cause, aud further (ca J} owing to [its] being & substratum of qualities, on account of Luts} capabrlity [ of beng auch] Capatihity again ( 19 | the absence of the absolute negation of avalitres (ro) Now the Non intimate cause is explained = Non~ ee 4 Cprarrersah 12 cored TT Hora RATE TAT | a Ro . SAAT 3 AIA TARTS) War agua yegrauaia BRUTY | TENA oR qanRataany aay alg WRI TaalanoMaaaead saree g Wifataa os Ne RMT usd AMET TEeATMT aay | ay tesued ve anateerem aa agate ae . fagiea weed sraqaaitrcoragiaag) weta aA RRMA ara | a TET eT aT aeRO PTUTATL H ee TAT TROT A T eOTT TET Qing BAaianaramayeg si Yo ti Parone v itaans ae wer Gaara areqenaniranre- intimate cause [is] that which 1s proxumate tothe intimate cause anid whose [causal ] capacity is ascertarned [or esta- bhshed ], as for instance, the conjunction of the threads hs] the non-intimate cause of the cloth, for the quality, the comunction of threads, being in yntymate relation with the threads, the possessors of the quality, [ and] the intimate causes of ihe cloth, is proxmmate to the intimate cause, and * 15 thecause withreference tothe cloth, bemg invariably ante- cedent [to it),and not known to be [there] for another purpose Likewise, the colour of the threads [1s] the non- intimate cause of the cofour of the cloth I say,fsays the objector] the cloth [1s] the intimate cause of the colour belonging to the eleth, hence it rs proper that some quality belonging to itcelf [that 1s, to the eloth], should bo the non-intimate causo wiih reference to the colour of the cloth, for that alone is proximate to the inti mate cause, fand] not the colour of the threads, that being nof proximate to the intimate cause [Do] not[sayJso That whieh 1s proximate to the intimate cause of the intimate cause of that [effect] is also indirectly proramate to the intimate cause (41) Instrumental cause 1s now explained —Instru mental cause [ is] that which ts neither the intimate cause, nor again the non intimate cause and yet lis} a cause, as for THIEN TAY UW “SRO & aren aaa | Tar Bares zea Ea WET h TL spay PARTS TTT | ¥ Temata ed aroma scarred g farannd ae BPITERATUT | MAA TAPIA ls © saRnranhitea AIT? Cer TATE TITS shgarinn var 4 wera stay faaeey Tiered Hey ada Haale BATA AFT 5 RUN Ae eaituatagat sas sHUMA ia | — aerafioraines sania ca ae oR az wis adisafind arcaleaerarat getatarigarasraroy- « weary t 4 arrorsrsona tread noongarerend regan | eer lustanes the shuttle etc { are] the instrumental causa of the eloth. (1a) Now this three fold cause belongs fo positive things [or entities) only As for negatton [or absence if hes only the instrumental leauge], forthere cannot be aunty mate relation of 3b anywhere, Tatimate relation again boing 2 property of two positive things * (az) Whatever [cause is] in some way pre eminent amongst these three fold causes [1s] itself the instrument Hence well-established [1s] this defintion—Proof {1s] the in- strument of right cognition ‘As regarda the definition—~Proof fis] that which makes known an cbject not known before, af [15] not fright] [Forif this definition 1s regarded as correct], secral { or continuaus J cognitions inthe form ‘this [1s] a yor, “Gis fis] a jar" with refer. ence to one and the same jor, which apprehond something al- ready apptahended, would not be right knowledge, which 15 undesirable Neither [ con )the character of making known what is tol known before [be said to exist im each of tha 4 Fgradeay t aR s 32 y TRAIT MANS eANT | ReAMe fh feenfraarasari- sat dingnfaaris a wag ee Prard fear lana Yara nN eAAN Tea TTA ag wan mons ala ata garauartifs aala fe meron ya He seal craft smait sha a sag aad tigated) aries ware sexAT ear Tm Rannananicaaaratrdore maeraishe foarrn wianiod sae, Hrer AAT a7 wo yas I HA tiexrdaimiyta aarnemrary wAer at qaTayig 23 above eerdal ecenitions | um the ground uf referrdag to oljecte charactericcd by different moments successhely For the cumprchension of minute divisions of timo [ euch as amement] can not he had by direet perception. If [it were suppeccd that} there fs the comprehension of [the minute] divisions of time, then there would not arme the apparent conteption about the simultaneity of the four [actions | beginning with motion and ending with conyunce ton, namely, motion, digyunction through motion, destruction of the former conjunction through dl junction, and then the produetion of the second Jur now } conjunction Teas [saya the objector }there ara many causes of right cognition, the knower, the objeet of knowledge etc [are] they alco the instruments or not? We reply---Even though the knower and tha object of know Jedge are present, thero does not arise right cognition, [while] when there 1s the conjunction etc of the organ of sense [with the object}, mght cogmition arises without delay, | hence it follows that Jon)y the conmanetion of organ of sense &te [i] the mstrument Jor though the character of being the cause is the same [ in the esee of Pramatr Prameya etc } this { Indriyasimyoga } hag superiority over the Knower ete, on account of this very re eminence{viz producing right knowledge without delay} PWrat is] pre-emmently effectrve | Is ] most effective Jand} that same has beentermed theinstrument Hence the conjuc- tion of the sense organete [1] owrng to [its] beng the most effective cause of right knowledge the proof [or means of right knowiedge andj not the Knowerfor cognising agent] etc TTT 93 ’ TaMAgETT | arta a sro aenit aaa eaegre MASA TAGE WAT 0 Ye 3 SPOT | TeTRINTeGM 1 Fer afer Fy Tar eAgandatret: RRO FAL ATT FeO afet Paar. | > fo seat aRaiommncn ‘seqat | qrarent Rett wun Barend afer or a SRon wie Ricotta 1 em. aot Arar wmauigize ag. RRfgardsiind aeGregaas Sy gaitttga mie ag miseeen sa HeH Rigg mere earls | amar Aer dasaa va ati « Tiga geqava RaMeMETentaRanm sacl Ha agar freee « fequceisanread Baerga aggmiay i faguaada wrgaiaisd fazgacaqaisaara | ae Gaia saiais wa aera 6 aneazaraad , fala: | aeMTOT AoisaTAT 1 fis gaiéex wer aca geet i seaat satamerdans it does forms found in several ohyeeto ( anugata}, luke word and inferential reavon, how [ean Jit { be |. 2nse perception ? {The cognition } produced by the objci alone 1s perception, am objact tao produces {2t] only when at realy exists An individualised object agai (is] one that realiy exists but not the generality, becauce with ifs positive exi.tence refuted by [alJ} proofs, at 1s un_ubstantial, owJng to ats hav- ing the form of the exeluston of others [Du} not [say] so The generality also has the nature of an object Thus then has heen explained Perception (18) Now 1s expounded Inference Inference [is] the consideration of the indicatory mark That |]s) anference by means of which [comething} 33 mferred (Something } i, inferred by means of the conaideration of the indicator mark therefore consideration of the indicatory mark [is J inference, and jt] a.) the knowledge of smoke ete, being the rnstrument “ith reference Co inferential cognition The knowledge of fire etc, (1. ] the inferential cognition, {andl the instrument thereof [1c] the knowledge of smoke ete What agun([ 1 ] the mdicatory mark (fngam) and 4 whatit conuteration (parumarsah} ? We renle The indica- repeat A feen sagt waretienitrcenda | aa garsgt zap We og dara: a cages | earniaene daedt cared 5 Seay Sa RTA lcdt Veg FETA ATTA 3 an | Taarey at agUant ag Eaten aa gear Wega wu ada wie ghin qeams Seaq qiasfas cardi gs 2 1 ake wratae wre veaeaa aay 6 teTar ga aRetantalt Bama ise qa wanna waa ayant ysiseaita HMR Aaaegs | gis Regartatisytte wa AToTeATEIT 3k Bar wenrqeraa desta TeaagihAaraaaa | ~ helped by {he mnpressions caused by repeated observation Theretore the relation between smoke and fire [is] only Batural and not adventitions, and a natural relatron [1 term ed J invariable concomitance Thus, when according to this procedure ( yaya ) the in- Yanable concomitanca between smoke and fire i» bemg apprehended, what knowledge of smoke in the lkatchen [is Produced} that fis) the First [knowledge of smoke} what knowledge of smoke on the mountain ete [he subject [of the syllogism, is produced | that [ts] the S*cond then having Temembered the mvariable concomitance between smoke and fire, apprehended previously, onee again one considers the smoke there on the mouttain itself in the form there 1s here on the mountain smoke invariably concomitant with fire - this knowledge of smoke then [1s |the Third and thi, muet needs be accepted, otherwire { the ultimate cognition ] would be only ‘where { there 1a] smoke, there [1s] Bre [On the strength of this cognition only Jhew could the fire tor the matter of that be existing fore [on the mountain]? There- fore the knowledge m the form there is smoke here toa” must be searched after This samelis| the consideration of the ¥adieatory shark, and [it Js] inferencé, a3 It 1s the instrument of inferential cognition From it ts produced the kuow ledge, the inferential cognition m the form there 15 fire here on the mountain * 9 SrfiReyaa 8 aa gee ye aararer Se qashE | mahaiaieitayera | ’ ae garg dah aBeirita taza Bay Teas Bera a ada TEATS Tirgzeq Ay eTAA rd) wink align | qavrhedaed sngeda dane ene wemtaraaa qe cast Girgeta aft 1 Salieaea a waadia ag dase area itora whgia te wabaqeay ahaa 1 arated AaISHAAG | Tat TATA eae Bh ACAI ATTEATAT a raAaaArsaaga | aay aa saRaATIAETAT qe fkarenaenda wsaaademeaaed FT the producing factor and the producing factor [which produces the particular effect ] 1s termed the limitation [or condition | But on [the case of] the relation between smoke and Gre, there dors not exist any lamitation ,af there 13 J one) 3s it capable of being perceived ( yogya ) or not capable of being percelyed? Jt is not possible to suspect [the existence of a lumitation ) not capable of being perce:ved, and fa Jamata- tien} capable of bemg percerved cannot be found Where there 1s.a mitation, there fit] 1s found, as for Instance, 1n [the case of) the relation of fire with smoke, the contact with wet fuel In [the case of] the relation of ‘the act of Killing’ with “the state of being tue produccr of demerit” prohibl- tion | by the Sastras js) the limitation and in [the case of] the relation of ‘the state of Mattris son wiih blackness’ the peculiar effect of food such as vegetables ete alone {is the limitation} But here in [the cise of} the assoefation of smoke with fire exists not any limitation, if there had been fone) one would haveseen fit] Therefore the absence of Umuitation is ascertained by perception itself accompanied by non-observation and cupported by hypothelieal reason- ing im the form ‘it does not exict a at is not scen*® And this being the case, the invariable concomitanece between smoke and fire is ascertained by perception itself, appre- hending thelrassociation helped by the impressions produced by the apprehension of the absence of the Imitation, and « fegquast ay fiom ceatta gerticalitrcgarda aa yaneh carat Re wa ter tar eitarfaas | eae gardl cafe 1 Tara Fa yaeMleate Taoal MEAs era a a tae waengt 08 agama ag Baia aa garda Wretaikts yen aia gia qady gaat SeTy adashiaat eared ga aff 1 alee wary We casaaamgigs | eee 7a grerantalt Far RTA ae yee AeA er WRTSECHTT RrrnaRacae | rah fegatmeisaaia 9 ator 3, SAT | MeATTERTT Tasia Teraiagraaay 4 helped by the Impressions vauved by repeated observation Therefore the relation between smoke and fire fisf only hatutaland not adventitious, and a natural relation fas team ed] invariable coneomitance Thus, when according to this procedure ( myaya } the in- Variable concomitance between smoke and fire 16 being apprehended, what knuwledge of smoke in the kitchen {is produced] that hs] the First [knowledge of smoke} what Knowledge of emoke on the mountain ete the subject [of the syllogigm, 13 produced | thathis] the Sscond then haying Temembered the mvanriable coucomutance between smoke * and fre, apprehended previuus}y unce again one considers the smoke there on {he mountain stself in the form ‘there 75 hbergon the meuntem craoke invariably concomitant with fire - this knowledge of emoke then fis Jthe Third and this mnst needs be accepted, olherwice| the ultimate cognition ] would be only ‘ where [ there 19 | smoke, there {1s} fire [On the strength of this cognition only | how could the fire for the matter of that be existing Aeve Lon the mountain]? There. fore the knowledge m the form there is -molke here toa,’ must be searched after This same [1s] the conerderation of the indicatory thark, and [)t 1s} Inference, as it Is the instrument ~ of inferential cognition From itis prodyeed the know. ledge, the Inferential cogmition m the form “there js five here on the motntsin " 9 omega 1 aa THAT | award a % Ae Fy Qay Waa aqaata aanftaaanag | dere! a amntadiamna wdanghy ccraraaiegeand | BY wTRAAATALKIS Raa caacaAhyany | ATT! wigan daeeaggard | digraandisadiqga 1 adit ATR aes af toiiass sary sada fag wigral] ay TATA BM TENE ag Be Magara | ata qieda | CHAT A TATOTMIa Sareea saat Rea ara aadiceartita qa gas aang cavaeqdegtttagend | ayalarstgs I say [says the objector] how is ibthat whieh [1g] the first« know]edge of smoke in the kitchen, do°s not make fone] infer fire? True [what you say, your obsection a3 relevant, but the answer 1s], because the invariable concomitancs is not apprehended [at that time] and it 1s only when the invart- able concomitance 13 apprehended that there can arise In- ferential cogmition Then, ata time affer the ascettaimment of the invati- abie concomutance, let the fire be inferred In the kitchen it= self’ [Do] not[ say} so Because as the fire is [actually] seen, no doubt [ about its existence Jean aris: And [only] a thing about which there 1s doubt 1s imferred. As iq said [or jaid down) by the author of the Bhasya— Reasoning operates neither in [the case of] an unpercerved for unknown or unheard-of ] object, nor in [ths caso off an object definitely ascertained, but in [tho case of] an object about v hich there ts doubt Then, how is it that Che hnowledge of smoke of a man who has simply gone to the mountain, does not male {him} infer fire? Thera zs indeed here doubt about the fra, owing to the absence of arguments for or against [it], doubt is res- sonably produced True[ what you say] B-cause inference eannot arise im [the case of J that man also who has first apprehended but later forgotte; the in- variable concomuance asin [the case of ] ong whe has earaegarra + pe Beare earl Sacha A ara aeT a Tisha Fea AETTT ata 8a guaglt a8 earfeegat yar aaned ag adhe yraraaias acaieagora a aeag | azingna aw formal | aa eareaanaecreradisa ara ia u te 0 erage Teele _ RRIGREAT Beaqiad wed vfs end easiadta RE nag zaaha nanatel PAistaa Ta aang sate Ete qaaahig tatiga aah waa saata Amiens qatar wa BARARZEs not apprehended the mvarlable concomulane and so the Temembrance of the mvariable cuncomitante also 1s 2 cause of inferential cognition And at the sight of the smoke with the (latent | ifapressioms aroused one renlem bets the invariable concormtance 1 the form whosoever fis) possessed of smoke {1s} possessed of fire as for tnstance the kitchen Therefore that knowledge of smoke [which takes place] when the sight of smoke has been produced and the remembrance or the invariable concomitanes has taken place (1s] the Third [knowleége] mm the form tins IJ possesatd ef amioke and thai alone make [one| afer the Lpresence uf [fire and none else That same [1s {and] that same fas] the consideration of the indicatory mark Hence this fis} well established that inference [19] the const deration of the indicatory mark C19} And that inference [1s] of two hinds—Intended for oyeuelf and Intended fer another {The inferenca} in Lended for oneself [1s] the cause of ones own understand ang To explaam —Having sus! by him-elf apprehended by Means of qualified percephion the invariable contonvitanca between smoke and fire 1 the kitchen etc [aman] gone near the monntain and entettaung a doubt as regards Sire present { gaia on that [mountain] [and] seeing a streak of smoke present 02 the mountain not cul away a aay Paved 1 ° . ] roference RE & % aR . eharar eae anil zaca os yseaarbltial satsanfy geseaht siereerat | wong want, waaay weqaa 7d Say t aw aaa wd gama wt defn wards Med Tae aq qelaaa tara q ‘Wéisanfaern WRaTaTE § ‘at gi gnary 4 dish gar AaTaa t § War araqi DP qeAa aa sta aa area seeneaar sania paw Wiscaia wawaa 1 aaad qurahgyrry uty 0 with the [latent ] impressions aroused at the sight of the smoke xemembers the invariable concomitance, namely {::) ‘ where [there is] smoke, there [1s] fire Then [he] rea- lises that here too 1s smoke [and] from that he by himself Tealiges that here on the mountaim, there is fire also—That lis] ference intended for oneself But when [aman] having himself mferred fre front smoke, employe a fivemembered syllogism (2ziAyam) in order to make another comprehend [the same], that [1- known as} inference intended for another [It {1s Jas follows — This mountain [15] possessed of fire Because [1t 1s | possessed of smoke Whatever [1s] possessed of smoke, all that (sa4 sah) hd possessed of fire, as the kitchen And thi [mountain ] co [that 1s, possessed of smoke] Therefore [1tis }so [that is, possesced of fire | From the mdicatory mark endowed with the fve quali fications [or characteristics ] propounded by this syllogism possessed of assertion [or statement] etc, even another comprehends fire Therefore this [15] inference imtended for another 9 TETTRAATTTTA 1 aaa aaigaereTTTTATk ‘aA ALT caea. we araafiiecantata gam | ora Weneae ay Ye Ga |e saTMNatH wads eater x cariyrarg nani seg aa quae TUlrel qay aaa qeuragsan® 1 meme qaaeiews Tas cl carta aa gis anes aor aEtEy He Matera ones gquerdeginteed asians atteenisaa aq. aga) oe eqey agaTTliss TUG Ge SiG AEMITIST enTOT ga Lag | mneqeaarn i aradiaiehiers | aaitareacneatia sata 0 (20) Here the posee. ion of fire by the mountain [1s] what 1s 10 be establiched the pos ession of smoke the reason ( heiawh) That! reavon] agaim [is] positive-negative as at ir possessed of invariable concomitance J with the sadhya both } positively [or affrmatively aniayoh| and nega tively (ayahrekah) To explain Wherever [there ts] Posse ion of smoke there [is] possession of fire as for in stance, in the kitchen —this [represents] posilive anvaria- ble concomitance, as the existence of {he positive associa tion of smoke and fire seen in the kitchen Likewise ‘where [ there] 13 no fire there emoke also exivts not as for Mstance in the big pool—this (represents| negative invariable concomitance as the negative association of smoke and fire 1s seen inthe big pool For [the represen tation of) the negative invariable corcomitance again thus [following] procedure fur order holds good J-The absence of that which isthe porvaded in the positive invariable soneomitance [is] the petvader here [in the vyatirek avyapii] and the absence of what ss the pervader [in the anvayavyapti} [becomes] the pervaded here lin the vyatirekavpapta] As has been said +— What sort of relation of the pervaded and the pervader between two positrye entitzes 1s admitled the reverse of that is understood [10 hold good] between the negations of them 4 BRITT y? Brag Saat eqrey wey cqranfacaa t . BNAATGSEAA! cael eA ATIAATA N SqCTED TAA TT eYTTHET TASTY | wa atiaen eae epetena aaa 0 as aga YRaee Balarada saat a eanauta 29 0 saa ana Pant was ay Wea HaeHeIaMAt aT ashearia aad > FATE laeieasR Tear Wey | EATS PaeTasaeT THN GATE | Aa MTA CHeaATAtaTA | Asa WHAT RACETVETALTT | Wansdseaserearey TT Tn {the case of] positive association the reason ( sedha nant )as admitted [ or destred } ag the pervaded and what 15 to be established (sacha) as the pervader 1m the reverse casé {anyathe that is in vyatireka} the negation of what 1s to be established [1s admitted] as the petvaded Jand} the negation of the reason as the per rader First the statement of the pervaded then afterwards {that} of the pecvader Thus examined the mvartable coneomitance becomes explicit in it true nature Thus then in [the case off the reason the possession of smoke there is invariable concomuance {both ] positively and negalvely (at) As regards the showing of the positive invariable concomitance only in a syliogism [it 1s 50 J because [ one s} purpose 1s served even by one [form of vyapti] and therem again the showing of the positive association [and not of the negative arsociation 1s usually resorted to] owing te its straight forward [lit not crooked simple} natury-——Tt 1s not proper to accomplish [one s | object that can be achieved in astraight forward [or direct) manner Indirectly [ or in @ round abound way]—but not on account of the non-existence of a negative invariable concomitance Thus then the reason the possession of smoke fis] positive negative Likewise other reasons too such as acai ty Haare FadissameqReseii sara’ y Wa & Fa ET A aR Fasegidtal | qa arnaed ana song- AT ad! Far 3 igtandé arena: qunfiqeqra | Wl ALAR 4 Hae ae sronfsa wate war erd g2t 1 Ay sttaegdt oe acara adie & aa f8 silaxgiicer cerned ane qroniaed Ba | a T Fanaa steaqeyracarany | wang | 7a gross ad Bern ae ea eaeat anita aiaeatid aa; Gaye ‘being a product,’ when what is to be established fis] *non- seternal nature’ ete should be understood ( drasdanih } to be Posttive-negative (az) Some [kind of } reason [1s] purely negative, as for Iostance, the reason ‘being possessed of breath etc,’ wheh “being possessed of the soul #3 what 1s to be established Thus—The living body [is] potsecsed of the onl Because [rt 1s} possesced of breath ete What is not possesead of fhe soul 1s not pnsskesed of * breath ele, ag (hrs jar And this living body [1s] not {so] Therefore [1¢ 33 | not [so] Here again, ' beg possessed of the soul” [1s] what 15 to be established of the ving body, [and] ‘ being possessed of breath etc ? [19] the reason And it [the reason 2s] purely negative awing 19 the absence { or impossibility } of a positive invariable concomitance To explam-~— What [is} possessed of breath ete fis] possessed of the soul, ’ ag X~ there can th no [such] instance Everything {whatsoever 29] living body [i-} the subject itself sag aed BATT PU wees aay querer errant | ACT | Re Va a4 ay . agar eaonte nreeafaeah Py) cer nadie a aeaTETT! Rrarray Therina ewagdizag aeagrara t we viadiia eamewa aa areas TUT TAS aT yA TAROT aE Tt seams sarmnaie crreaeay t RATATAT | aq samigia a eqaiged aa sAETO GAT ITHT aren i A TAT! RATS AA aT 3 QR 2a SAT aa sarerah erendea TUES EMqTeoM Wet one? YarRaTai so T MAI VEN AT AWAIT! ART FATTO MTNIA A definition also [ia] a purelw negative reason ag for in stitee thedefinition of the earth being po*sessed of odour The matter under drpute should be called earth’ Becau a [ta | posses ed of odour What is not called earth [1s] not porse_sed of odour as water Or the definition of Proof as being the instrument of ‘ nght cognition To explain Perception etc should be called proof Because [it as] the instrum nt of right cognition What is not called proof [1 Jno the instryment of Tight cognition as faljaciouss n > p?re ption ete This again|i |] not o Therefore [tha Jno #6 But there [1s] mo positrve association what [1s] the instrument of right cognition that should be called Proof there 1s no instance of positive association as for instance X_ the whole of proof berng made the subject ‘Here again what 1s to be established [1s] the desigmation [orus of the term pramina] and not the nature of proof for that J] prama natva} being sdentica] with the reason [pramakararatva]) owing to its being tha instrument of rght cognition there eaerent By cy mnmagivcumy | dtd Ramee sane Vn Ae daar Hq: + wage he waeragi | rar CCC COECULSIL a 3 wa nad aafaeay wer aes | Aa STIR | ARATPAT gTet | ae ceed waa ungy sae by 1 Wo Ae Rtereria | agit a wale aa vaaaty w nate qargT era eaiiteearemarang | waa fe amiiteg ware Bara: iat waa HBR Le ‘ maeaanetal: Terecfit | wt aeeritieaeratanasaitaega zanni would atise the fault of the identity [of the reason] with what isto bo astablished, which ig an undesirable eonting- eney ( prasangah) Thus then have been shown the purely negative {reasons | . (23) Some other {kand of | reason Lis] purely posh “7 tive, Thus--Sound {is] nameable * lecaac [1 18] possessed of knowability What [1s] knowable [18] nameable, a8 a 347. This again [15] 50 Therefore [at 43) 80 Fiere nameability (13 | wat is to be established about sound, [ and ] knowability [is ] the reason, And it [is] only purely positive What 15 not nameable 33 not also know- able, ag fur instance, ‘Y~—there is the absence of an instance of negative association In ali eases att object which can be proved [to be existent] by means of some proof, can | alone [be Yan insfance and that [aust be | hoth keowable and nameable (as a matter of cours>] (ag) OF these thnee {kinds of | reasons, the posflive- TT paauhyae. 0 TATE SF eared) CFA RP apa e sand ay Rareaacg aa & rete wa Gene wa aqme it teenie ator cia cata qereanat gq qapaded waa area Baars: sartiaavarwy saad © iat cant earth yRarararagqeatartaie sat frat aang | ae at ArwTy A “ TROT ane TINT , ®t se ARTA 1 az TaNtaleagia ae & Hameaar Ua qT Deat fiea i ggenaa aaa oa te aaa 2aenes frenfreaglt 1 ‘ Beare Rqare ang a ag cq eda disarercotar Bar us gant ot ET TENT TAT A we x rare fe wanaeniainaaeaaga wna Dien TEAR ATAR INT | _ mnaranag ama ata Ea enafagdaarag Perec toad a zat eee ( of the invariable concomitance) [t Lis] of two kinds [namely} too-wide (sudhdrana }mconchuswe and to narrow ‘eonslusive Of them the too wide meonclusive [fallacious Feason 1s that] which exisie im the subject in «umiar Instances and in diseumilar instances It [1s] as follows ~ Sound | is | eternal Because [it 1s possessed] of knowability like the sky . Bere ayain knowability [3s] the reason and thet existe 10 eternal as woll as non etextial (thangs! The too-narrow meonclusive [ falkatious reason 13 that | which excluded from smular instances {and] dissimilar Instances ex: jy in the subject alone It [1s] as follows — Earth [13] eternal Because [1 15 ] possessed of odour Berg possessed of odour again cxcluded from Similar mstances [viz J eternal {things} and from dissimilar instanees [vjz | non eternal (things) exists only m earth (31) "The Counter balansed {fallactous réason] again fis} that alone for whieh reason [there] exists another reason establishing the reverse of What 1s to be established. It W J aa follows — = ee x wre aigen tear att aura we ’ nesta faanwitirarary mq fae oftrradciaenag ete want wegfaga a Tega n Ft n Seria mesersnn aan IT F GR TATA Rearend: Reread stem ezent aay Mir Sgt | PAIL) HET! wa ft Teneara tit aanacond agar sea aetat- cafe eatamatithdheriigerars ¢ we eararagarr 1 en sound fia paint ral Boose Pitas] wedd of qualities of ctermot {things crewrnal qualities | Cand j Sound {di} eternal Recueil is} valid of qualithe af nanoternal fthlnags or noneternsl qualities } This sameim n}so (nr) etHed "having a rfyak" for nourilbed or MyHiG doramivgueay } ‘ (ga) Tho room where the ale nce for negation] of nhat byte bee fabli hed a) aseertained in the auhject by another [ more pow erful) proof and the ulyest of which 13 Fthus} contradicted 13 called the B lated [fallacious reason al o annulled or contradicted or refuted Jit stated or addnced when the fit timo for it has passed away, or rojected owing to the lapse of proper time] AS Fire ti | not-hot B env o [1t 18] produced like water . Here agiuin what 1. to establi hed bv the reason * bang produced [1 ] coolmes its negation (wiz hotnesa) is ascertained by perception itself heine.s being oxpert enced Gy mre tra of or porcepties cogedtiae of tous h Thus has been expounded fnference Sqaray ae , sat 1 Tar RA Trees ahelweRAgIAT aurea TaTRatals aries wardterar nay Sea aera wai oTE GET Feat aa wat areand ene age TAT wuiiiag joe eas an agiunieecega Wea4wsy franfiesanre BURT naa | hares foray aad) Taqeyarea Goeela waa aeandiegina Vea gen B80 ROH TTOTATA | 9 FagarTeresTRIATATd WAAC ata 3 BU EQITRTARTATAR RB Pom ABO (33) Analogy [1s] the knowledge of an atima! (p ndah} charseterised by resemblance with en ox helped by the Temerabrance of the meanmg of the directing sentence (at tesoralyam) As when aeiy man although not know ing the gataya having heard from some forest-dwelling than the gentencs As anoz sothe gavaya going to the forest [and] remembering the meaning of the sentence ‘ Sees an animal characterised by resemblance with an ox then the knowledges of the animal characterised by resembl ance with the ox helped by [orm collaboration with} the Temembrance of the meaning of that sentence {1s] analogy °0 account of ats being tbe instrument of analogical ecogni fon Analogieal cognition again {1s | the apprehension of the connection between a name (4¢ajaa)and the object xpressed by it («a yi jin the form This animal here ff f Genoted hy the word gavaya after the knowledge of the animal eharecterised by resemblance with the ox And Vhat same [upamati] [15] the effect (39) This Analogy ogain 13 an independent [or different) Ptoof as it brings about right cognition not capable of being established by perception and inference Thus has heen expounded Analogy & a THAT rep Tere | aE aa t S Smmarrd seg ETc egige aT Tae: TTT TARTAR aA Tea VAR | ore toy TER THT Teilet TENT a aPRHT TTT & AIVaTRTE atta featyia se aed aeemiaaqia nian qenraaaraemnea t cane ¢ ontare adraat rev 4 Se Wa Hoan Nay a a: Sin areola + . oe ~ are a aa a amemndareasiraade (endear ! aansinen feafeia a creat mad peentateieeea ieee ty ans VARHRD Wet arsenate WTI F (35) Word [1s] the sentence of one trustsrorthy And (4) one trustworthy [3s] a person who asserts thing* as fthey }have happened And asentence [15 made of] 3 collection of words possecsad of expectancy, compatibility and yuxtaposittort For this very reason (e/a era) ‘ox, horse, man,elephant™ ~ these words [form | no sentence, because of tha abgence of mutual expectancy *{ One } should sprinkle with fire ~ this [1s ]nosentenc>. because of the absence of compatibility [ between sprinkling and fire} Not indeed 1s there compatibility of mutual con- struction [or association] between fire and sprinkhug To explain By the instrumental by the fire’ is conveyed the instrumentality of fire with reference to the effect in the form of sprinkling fire lis] not, for the matter of that {ea}, ft to become the instrument for the sprinkling Therefore I there 15} n0 relation of instrument ind effect hetween_ fire and sprinkling, on account of incompatibility So ‘ Jone] should sprinkle with fire’ — this [1s] po sentence Likewise, words cuchas ‘bring a cow’ uttered at intervals (asa?a} every third hour, one by ene { form] no a eienaeanreaa eeer Nae aA AAT a atts ant grin ue Waal | Beans Tegal wat a ere Aaa aTeqcerierrarat | J“ aaa oo — vat © Unga geqoalla alates waa awa Weary yen wirfadia ear TAAANs | tar ar a HR [Pa wana weds | war ay areaa HEtAMeTTeT fetta tana on ae SQ watt weSANT | RTaNa a yeti energiin FReral | qengtararag rar reagan aa frardarasal ay aa + Magra garner Haeraieany | WM sake wapiadedeaaamgiaqaaia eee eee Sentence Because even though mutual exp etuncy 1s there even though the compatibility of mutual construction is alco there there is no raciproval juxtaposition Only those words again that aie posse sed or expectancy have compatibity and ara | altered] togelhor [or have juxtaposition} [ar ].a sntence as for iastance ‘one deewons of [securing] heaven shvald piform the Jyolastoma soerfice etc or as for instance on the iver bank are five fruits or a8 for snsinnca the sate woids “bringa cow etc uttered without any interval [or delay ] (36) Leay [says the objector] Even here [1¢ 45] not the words | that are} poss sed of oxprelaney hut the things denoted by them ] because [it 33} (he frutts and others that are the supported [that are] possessed of expectancy with reference to the support the bank et¢ Considering {the matter] stati further (es )[ 1s | not the taings exther [ thas are] possesced of expectancy for expectancy being of the Nature of desire 1s ant alimbute of ¢>nttent [ objects | Tene | what you say] The things tor the matter of that are said to have exp clanoy owing to [then] producing expectancy between them [or for different obj cts] in the ae . aFegtbearntilar qari § 28 aaa SaVHIg! ead | ager aan werait aratg chequered aan aeraaray ofaorenareatiaeal PTT ATT BTRTENC | < Sanuk Sraigr ceennagdivareczgion qaread at Reais aded | aefkad a waraiata gar Rewrite | da anened way eae aaa aR warner ica erdafeareagre ste veraclarerati eacinrat arargi saa sarees Wert aafeaar wrat SATE TIAA RE a Fa Taadide AAT fe 4 adage | ayeaaeraaedinra. | waar aot hearer of words denoting them, and through that agency, the words also dencting them are metaphorically decribed as having expectancy Or, the words thems=lves [are gard to be] pocsessed of expectancy figuratively because, after denoting [ their] objects, they preduce the expectarcy wilh reference to other objects Suntlarly the objects that have expectancy { are ] com- pitible far mutual construction, and through that agency. the words also are figuratively de tribed us compatible for mutual construction Juxtaposition, un the other handf{ tu) lis} the uttermg of words without any interval {between them or delay] by one and the same pereon and that Is possible in the words themselves directiy not through the agency of object< ¢ This then w the conclavion (artiah} arrived at—A sentence [1s} the collection of words that produce in the hearer through the agency of denuting the objects the expectancy referring to otter word. ir riferring te other objets that denote objects compatible for mutual construc- tion and [areso] being comprehended [and } that have juxtaposition [that 1, that cre attend withoul any anteryal hetwecn them } { 37) A word again jis) a collection of Ietters for evlistle: ir sounds} And a collection here [means] Tere ateaaat rer we Pamgarhiarhaataawiguardeng pigdaat + Wuirriaarnes qdanlgearsited 2 aeeaanitiaaat ATONE | aa UPA cacdifisads aemftarcaig wea-5 Baar! saeranad edit qatear epic Wr qrpgquentackarerpimeragie itt Fequ Tarsarqarqaelaaanssreeat areas Brat u 39 1 See) Se BET TATA aid arsaaraqHdot qa RUBTANAA TAO 1 es anneal ee being the object of one cognition Thus, because if iy im- Doseibla to comprehend many letters at one and the same time, owing to the letters coming in succession and being Michi destroyed straight away (tara), there is produced the comprehension ot words comprising many letters, pre- Sent and absent, at one and the came time dy the car, which 38 connected with the Jast letter which is helped by the impression, caused by the apprehenston of the varioas Preceding letters, at the time of the hearing of the last letter after having apprehended the various preceding letters, and which 1s favoured by the comprebension of the convention (samayah } of explaiming the word owing to the intensity Lor strength ] of the auxilartes, ike recognition Foy, in the apprehension (pratyaisa) of recogmiion the former state, allhough past, do*s present itself Then ts effected the Comprehenajon of sentence, comprising Inany words, by the Organ of hearing which has for its object the Jast word, helped by the impreswuns caused by the apprehension ,of @ various proasding wards, and favoured by the appre. henston of the meaning of the words{or of the objects signified by the words ] tence, then, when put Thos [thot 1s, such a] sen , Ww p font a) trustworthy person {12} proof called Word, tis effact [14] the cognition of the meaning of the sentence And this definition of word-proof [1] the same for worldly ae aay aey apeadgay | deacgegaoreera Ga AF TTA Te Ste cad Paaat we HAyad waa a a re PT Spee eather ; . as nit Fa Guesh AIA Ae BAMA HA ae FT TLATHHT see . . 8 Bd aes oa gaol seRtaraasaraa | ug afieniy aeart sama! caedisera sare! NATO SASAATET AAT we tt sai et preraTe | Som a ~ * arrariaae waa saranita! aang drat gage Fat o THT Ns Gad a Ua Hecaa | Fay ay rps s = ~, = ~ cay dined afsaiararace Huq) an dimaeaarard waaay werdtay san 1 as sear he Oe [matters] and Vedic [sacred teats] But in [the case of] the world, this [1s } the distinction, some one or other only cat be a trustworthy person, not everybody &o, only sume worldly sentence which has for ifs speaker a trustworthy person [1s] proof [or authoritative}, 1m [the case of } the Vedas, on the other hand, each and every sentence cornposed bv the most trustworthy Lord Mahesvara, [1s] proof [or authoritative] the whole itself bemg the sentence of 3 , trustworthy person Thus have been expounded the four proofs Anything else than these [1s] no [independent] proof, bemg yuct ineluded 1n these, if 1¢ 1s a means of right knowledge. (39) Isay [says the objector ]-Pre.umption [or Im- plieation J also is an independent [or separate] proof To éxpfain When 1 1s heard or seen that the fat Devadatta -dyes not eat during the day eating by night [on his part} as"presumed Fatvess 19 not po sible without eating by night 1n the case of one not eating by day Hence presuin- plion itself arising out of the impossibility of otherwise accountang for the fatness, [ps] the proof for eating by night [by Devadatta] And it [is] different from perception etc, 8 SSR ARTO GRAIN 3 TVR UAT TETUAT! wal ATE TATE I . 5 STaTEY TosTOTT ue Uber sear TaATe | amt UGraTaCaaART & farqara mem | ay Sra wal yea fq seprace ela dire t 5 WT et us ae Rasy awe via qar far warpaatedtr | Hara gars V4 SRae Aa . aa faeatteagate ohare we TARTAR Trnahetee ganda gerata 0 881 4 7 STATENS TA RAATONL | « TAT yre soe | sarees fee DOVE Aang | TerergTEe Terr frafiva 1 EIS a because eating by mght can nol be the object of perception, ete [We reply) not so because eating by might is the Obiect of ference To explain This Derwdatta eats by might Because [ he 1s possessed | of fatness without eating by day He who does not eat by might [13] nob fat without eating by day as for mstance { X} [who is} not fat not eating either by day orby night And this [ Devadatta 1s] not so Therefore { he 1s] not so —When by menns of this purely negative inference can be comprehended eating by mgbt for what purposes should Presumption he ragarded separately (that 15 a5 an mdepen. t dent pramann )> (40) Tsay [save the oltector ] there 13 a s*parate proof called non existence [negation absence] also And at desery,eg tg bo accepted for the appr hensinn of negation To explam Gwing to tha non appteken ion of the yar, ete 1, ascertaimed the non 2x1 lene of the yar ete And 1 aq Be” wear Tere WaT warrant erat «Rage , Sree sear Braga tt ge t aiagmmeaiainr veut et daaty et Rac aeatanto tergringngarint sete 1 agar qeyq ater sarqrartiar SRC | srairna 1 Te epee Seay creat sarerenricuil « & aferieaerangy | armzaq amrtat = aeq saraenReapraanfsetrata t a Bigaravan daeitsian sdiranarh fe dacs 7 nan-apprehension [means] the negation of apprehension by this non-existence-proof is npprehonded the negation of thejarete. [We reply }{It is} not so; when the negation is apprehended by perception itself, accompanied by non~ apprehension and helped by hypothetical reasoning In the form -if the jar had been here, then fone} would have seen Lit}, lake the ground,.what need ef the non—existence- proof? (40) Tsay [says tho objector J-Tho gonse~orgins cognike things which are cannected [with them] To explain: Senee-organs fllumine an object after reaching it. Beenure [they are] instruments of cognition, ws like light. Eye and ear Ulumine an obycetafter reaching it Becaure [they ora f external sense—organy wa Tike the organ of Couch ete. wind that the organ of touch and the Hike, {Mumine Jan object after reachIng [1 }. 1s to be sure, sgretd to bp beth the partic. ford putanis} Now thre d no connection between a sen organ and Canjunction and iipcrente Bre mde (hee St Or, negation WHIGMRAeZg A TL, + By Wat war ee itaditeadia ae an rarer a RET 5 arr | agafgiacrars Radish! | Riuierra aaa wa a ware fetid Reta | Bara HE aaeara feat waft sere a. Gmc ag itiesd eam af Haren fereageantiraciaan | aa faerenateaarreaar | cant t rR Aastema sara Gee ate qozor ay fienamuleat ane gave dens waka af g erating i sargeqe atone fahexara ta area Rea Gea FMAeAMAET WHA | AeHTeHIGET ae Fiwo}conneetion and there can not be these two between them [conynction can not be there] hecause of the rule that conjunction [takes plice J only betu cen two substances and ne ation has not the nature of aswbstance [There is] no inhesence either owing to the absence of their being known to be not separated The relation of qialification and qualified can no be conneetion at all because it 1s not different does not subsist in both fthe connected things} and 18 notone A connection mideed 1s different from the {to J connected things doessub set in both the connected things and ts one 4, for metance the conjunction between drum and stick It indeed [is] diferent from drum end stick does subsist in the two [viz drum and stick } and {is} one Bat the relation of qualifica tion and qualified fis} not ke that To expla The relation of qualification and quatifi € between ctiek and Man is uot different from them The chameter of beme acwalGcation of the stich fis] not a different entity nor ‘he character of being qualiGed of the man a different entity but fis] just ats Lof the stick of the man] 6 vn nature And non existence alo {1 ] po se sed of the character of a qualifeation and that of the qualified In negation again there can ba no po sibility fof the subs tence Jof any one + Tay HAP | ” ao oF 5 vdu en . waaay mang gana ag Bae aa reo ag zaTeTCeE Wl UCTS HATS MUONS TTT RTS 33 Semel eae ane eq « Torche erat Tparrraeadeercoa fe anata a rai OTAEGTY CANN BUTT aT ara araTeaie wan | aqa fanaa a iaaeaeeqna fart argwatira Mizar fagrorraarmey Beary Waar awatreqianang | ete @ fren arag ie Witeaharaa aera 1 Rage st fered | wayata ae Brat ar san wer yanatrasga am a ealegory out of substance and others Therefore the chara eter of bung a qualification that belongs to negatioz [25] Bo thing, but ats own nature the character of producing 3 cogration tamited by itself and [11s] nol a differant entuy Similarly are to be regarded { the relatauns of ] pers aded and pervader caucs and effact andth like For the chara eler of being a pervader of fr andoth r [1 ] but [thez] very mature the character of producing 2 cogniti n [of an oby ct} Jinvamiably } associated withthem The character of being 3 cause also that belongs to threads ete [1s] but [their] very nature of being present and absent corresponding to the effect [ being present and absent] and not a different ontaty And negation sl o is possessed of the chiraeter of the per waderand thatofthecause Again there is no possibility of generality ete [subsisting J 1n negation Thus then the relation of qual:fcaizon and qualified Irs} not different from the natures of the qualification and the qnabsed “hor [1sit] subssstang im both fur inthe qualsfication exisig only the nature of the miihfiertion Jand} thesb enceof the nature of the quslified and im the qualrfi dexists only the nature of the qualifi d and) the absence of the nature of the qualification. Nor Jas it} one The word relation” beard (or put in J afler the copulative compound [ dissolved] ada grarmargan wea oFbs fqonngt fatter 1 gta weer ward is. aes a aIeT | ae cage Gsit 1 aE aie geaMATTATT | PAT MMI aaeTSATT TET A GAT 1 3 [eras araraicaens ra | ara saraigieee ota Wa waren? 9 caarawig sone caralgiize fear fironaqdats fers 1 wargemencsarandi 3, weg fico freea | He TER | ee — ae aera water aR gre qhertsls ot ar | Wer qdgahe wen eedtraredyn ( errate ) vin SAP Ga oraey oes Sg ay ata ATT Sqtrl frees 1 wenfgnt se seq aTaeraTae sainrern sada Cnfig uieta age EATS AT Reaitare aie wareadtte wearer t Oa HUTS Las SOHN Ger qua Ia TT ROTTER | stead 1 Gre gaa ada aay AKA STRUTT UTE TTENTaS Te ATATOTET ATE al Fa araareaiicnraveacaya cared sewed! SBS eT GaN Bee Ree ARTISTA ‘Where the objection Jor fault 23) equal [that zs equally stands applicable } to (the views of }both and the removal (or refutation thereof ] also [is] the same one [party] should not be questioned [or taken to task Jim a duseussuon of suc amatter (az) Here is now expounded [the following topic F When the knowledge of water ete 3s produced some ont proceeds to[tahe] the water etc afier having ascertained © the validity for correctness! of 1f [the Knowledge] Someore agai proceeding [to take the water etc Jon the strength of mere suspicion Fabost its presence) ascertains the validity {of the knowledge] when water has been found ak a time after he has acted—this (is] the state of things [Now] here some one contends —Having already before- hand ascertained the validity fof the knowledge] a man proceeds the validity [of the know I=dge } being ascertained from [the knowledge J ufself The meaning [ or idea J of this fis as fellows }-—By the same [process] by which indeed & apprehended «ome knowledge [1. apprehended ] the vabdity also thereof Other than that which makes { one} apprebend tne know ledge fis} not that whreh make, [one] apprehend the validity the attribute of the knowledge Hence the self-euficiency of the validity [of knowledge] [1s] nothing but not bemg dependent on something different from what SEY Gor. aT ay BTUs Sag aafend viata VeergTATat wea Ny: Te marwagraaatee ert Ae aad wae ts . Areas YMA | ae GRU Gada 1 a ments . 1 AGA YER wet agaTTs nega’ we are Maas | sai gutateqargqaateaearalser ard qera ear 7H wg ad a geMAE car AMOR per ca. athe ad Fre qeea rier aetGieee ate yaar Undisd v2 at weer grams aiid aa pis aac We are arm age ra era la @ aa Ioales(one | apprehend the knowledge Ax regatds the know- ledge, i} a8 apprehended, to be sure, befora the aetryity Otherwise, how could there be even the doubt about [13] validity or non-validity? Doubt ean not arise as regards an object that is not apprehended Therefore, prior to thy actre vity itself, when the knowledge 1s apprehended by means of Presunintion ariaing out of the impossibility of otherwise &ctotnting for the known-ness is apprehended the validity delonging to the knowledge also, by presumption itself, then the man moves on But not that only the knowledge 3 apprehended first, and ofterwards the walidity of the knowledge 15 ascertained, when the sight of the result takes blace at a time after the activity [1s gone throngh J To this we reply —What has been said by you viz that knowledge 1s apprehended by means of presumption arising cut of the impossibility of otherwi.a aecounfing for the OGwar-ness—ihis siself we would not tolcyate [that is admst ta be true}, as regards the appreension of tha valadity by at, Wis a question] still farther of [we adnast that still tesa | To explain The followmg mdeed [is] the veew of { our] Opponent When the knowledge having for [its] object, a yar ete, arises, Known-ness 12 recognised as belonging to the Jar Im the form Thuis jar is known by me = Hence 1 13 yaferred thut when the knowledge 1s produced, some attribute a Seen ee v ssextad . = 4 TRATT (ea, mT wa Ww atraerceraataal a Weaa sagas 1 ad tT TASAASat araatama sal ait Herter staged acorns Hralagard | katara HAT Tot gt aaaiseac ea | Oe oa dagen | SnaeTarfalenraT aararal STATaTA | aq glawiaagiadneaaa fe azigaraeaat ! aang 4 araq ararya agar | aasrareargrerat argqmmd | agara ¢ faa cigars fr ~ wagha | abeaizut aea arederte | Bagagaaa aa cajled known ness 1s produced, and because it [ jfataté ] 3s nat produced prior to the knowledge, and 13 pre duced when the knowledge 1s produced, 16 is ascertamed that it as produced by knowledge, owing to the posilive and negative agsociation And likewise, this attribute called known~ness arising ont of knowledge could not be possible without knowledge, owing to the non-production of the effect in the absence of the cause Therefore through pre sumption, 1s indscated knowledge, 1ts own cause, by Knows- ness, Bot this [argument of the opponent 13 ] not proper, because known-ness exists not as differentfrom the character of being the object of knowledge Tsay [says the objector ]~The character of being the object of knowledge, of ajar ete 18 the same as being the substratum of Known~ness produced by the Knowledge. To explain The character of being the object, [: ] not, for the matter of that [produced] by identity, 18 identity 13 not admitted between the knowledge and the yar If, again, [1t be held that] objectivity [13 due to the fact that the cognition] [13] produced by it [ the object J, then the senge-organg eta would have to be regarded a3 being possessed of objectivity, because ihat knowledge arises from the sense-orgzans ete, as well Hence this 1s in- ferrsd —Sometbing as mtndured 10 She azar hy the knowledge, s nivale 1 e ART Tea. SeHTOTE ay We fata 9a we or weg aaer Peds aiee ahs Ma fomernguissqaaaqeds gah ag, NEIATRT AMT farm. squat Geddes 1 adanrdrcaes a was) Rae aragiiaeahesfaarey 1 gacarat 35 ArT ae A CATA aA aa Ala, aaa alata winaardnt | te a grea ay

    You might also like