365bet娱乐

TEXT-39: atmanisthas ca samavayena siddher abhavah karanam. bhinnabhinnena ca sambandhena tattadasadharanakaran arupayas tatsamagryah manivisistasya vahner ivetaretara ²-visistasy manoyogadeh, pratibandhakatvayogyat. tatha ca katham anugatarupena tayor abhavah karanam. VARIANTS: 1. TCD, Jagadisi, and Paksata-prakarana omit karanam. 2. Gadadhari and Tattvacintamani-didhiti-prakasa read ivetara- for ivetaretara-. TRANSLATION: And the absence of a cognition of probandum in the soul through the inherence is the cause. Through the different relations, their causal factors, namely, the uncommon 1

causes cannot be the obstructing factors, so also the contact with the mind qualified by some thing else, like the fire qualified by the gem. Thus, can the absence of those two be the cause without a common unifying factor ? NOTES: Raghunatha states that the cause and the obstructing factor should have the same relation. When the cause is produced by the inherent, the obstructing factor also should be by the inherent. If the causal factors or the cognition of probandum are through non-inherent relation, e. g. contact, they cannot be an obstructing factor for the cause through the inherent. The relation is of six kinds as follows: (1) conjunction (samyoga), (2) inherence with the connected (samyuktasamavaya), (3) inherence with the connected and the connected and inherent (samyuktasamaveta- (5) inherence with inherent samavaya), (4) inherence (samavaya), (5) (samavetasamavaya), (6) qualification-qualified relationship (vises anavisesyabhava). Vide (Athalye 1897: 31 and 221 ff.). Therefore, Raghunatha states that the absence of the cognition probandum (siddhi) and the absence of the causal factors of perception (pratyaksasamagri) cannot be the cause without a common unifying factor. With regard to the example of fire and gem, vide text-10 of TCD.