365bet娱乐

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.4.3:

啶掂じ啷嵿い啷傕お啶侧�曕�嵿し啶｀�� 啶�啶む�嵿ぐ 啶膏ぐ啷嵿さ啶ㄠぞ啶� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶�啷佮�溹�嵿く啶む�� 啷�
啶︵�嵿ぐ啶掂�嵿く啶距ぎ啶苦い啷嵿く啷佮�氞�嵿く啶む�� 啶膏�嬥そ啶班�嵿ぅ啷� 啶�啷囙う啷嵿く啶む�嵿さ啷囙え 啶掂た啶掂�曕�嵿し啶苦い啶� 啷� 啷� 啷�

vast奴palak峁�a峁嘺峁� yatra sarvan膩ma prayujyate |
dravy膩mityucyate so'rtho bhedyatvena vivak峁�ita岣� || 3 ||

3. That in reference to which a pronoun can be used is substance, presented as something to be differentiated.

Commentary

As quality etc. depend upon substance, the latter is first defined.

[Read verse 3 above]

[Pronouns can do one of two things. Some merely denote things in general, like 鈥�sarva鈥�. Others denote particular things like 鈥�anyatara鈥�. It is the former which are used to refer to substance. In fact, that is just the characteristic of substance, namely, that it can be referred to by a pronoun (蝉补谤惫补苍腻尘补辫谤补迟测补惫补尘补谤艣补测辞驳测补迟惫补尘). Pronouns refer to things in general either as present or as past. When the element of present or past is discarded, what remains is just the thing in general and that is substance. It is presented as something to be qualified by such limiting factors as the universal. What is meant by 鈥榩resented鈥� is that what is being defined is not external reality, but reality as presented by words. Thus, even a universal, when presented as something to be qualified, becomes substance. This conception of substance is quite different from that of other schools. In this way, anything can be presented by words as substance, as something to be differentiated. This is true of the other conception also, namely, that of 痴腻箩补辫测腻测补苍补 who held that all words denote the universal i.e., something which is the cause of the same cognition arising and the same word being applied to something. Such a universal exists in action also. That is why we cognise every step in the process of cooking as cooking. If only the last stage in the process, that is, the softening of the substance cooked, were the meaning of the root 鈥榯o cook鈥� (鈭�pac) then the other stages would have to be understood through inference or implication and would not be the actions of the cook. If the activity of the agent is not expressed by the root, but is understood by inference or implication, then there would be no connection between the meaning of the suffix, namely, the agent and his activity which would not be expressed by the root but only understood by implication. If the root 鈥樷垰pac鈥� denotes only the softening of the material (viklitti), then the material can only be 办补谤迟腻 or karma办补谤迟腻, but never the object. In other words, we would never be able to say鈥�devadatta岣� odana峁� pacati. Secondly the softening is only the last stage or moment. So it cannot be the action at all. Action is a process of which the parts are arranged in a sequence. The action of cooking is in the same position. Such moments as putting the vessel on the fire must be part of that process, because at these moments also we get the idea of cooking. So there is such a thing as the universal of cooking inhering in every moment of the process. This is true of all actions. Even though every verb denotes the universal aspect of action, the accessories become connected with the individual aspect which is something to be accomplished (蝉腻诲丑测补) and only 蝉腻诲丑测补 can be connected with 鈥�蝉腻诲丑补苍补鈥� (the means).

Just as it has been shown that action is a universal, it can also be shown that it is a substance. Even according to the view that the verb denotes action primarily, it must denote substance, that is, the accessory secondarily. Otherwise, in regard to what would action be the primary meaning? Would it not be simpler to say that the verb denotes primarily the accessory in activity? Even according to the other view, the accessory comes in secondarily. Otherwise, the expression 鈥�devadatta岣� pacati鈥� where the word expressive of action and the word expressive of accessory are in apposition to each other, would be inexplicable. Action, the meaning of the verb, can be referred to by a pronoun, characteristic of substance. In the expression 鈥�蝉腻诲丑耻 pacati鈥� we see that the meaning of the verb is modified or differentiated by the word 鈥�蝉腻诲丑耻鈥�. Similarly, the verb 鈥�腻蝉测补迟别鈥� can be qualified by the word 鈥�sukham鈥� and so its meaning becomes 鈥�bhedya鈥�, a characteristic of substance, as stated in the verse under consideration.

The M墨m膩峁僺akas argue that the verb expresses 鈥榖ringing about鈥� (产丑腻惫补苍腻) and that substance is understood by implication only and is not the expressed meaning of the verb. This is wrong. It is the root which expresses 产丑腻惫补苍腻. The suffix denotes the accessory. Thus the former expresses the 蝉腻诲丑测补 and the latter the 鈥�蝉腻诲丑补苍补鈥� and that is how the two are correlated. If 鈥�蝉腻诲丑补苍补鈥� is understood only by implication, there would be no relation between the two].

Now the definition of quality (驳耻峁嘺), based on indications found in the 艣腻蝉迟谤补, is being given.