________________
Vada ] Ganadharavada
.: 215 >> Karyamiti kāraṇapiti ca sadhyamidam sadhanamiti karteti i Vaktā vacanam vācyam para pakśo'yam svapakśo'yam ?1115811(1706) Kim veha sthira-dravo-sña-calatā-rūpitvāni niyatāni i Sabdādayaśca grāhyāḥ śrotradıkāni grāhyaņi ? | 159 I (1707) Samatā viparyayo vā sarvagrahaņam vā kim na sunye i Kim šūnyatā vā samyak sadgrahaḥ kim vā mithyatyam ||16011(1701) Katham sva-paro-bhaya buddhiḥ katham ca teşām parasparamasıddhiḥ Atha para-matya bhanyate sva-para-mativisesaņam kutah ? ||16111 ]
Trans.—157-161 Again, in case of all-pervading negation how could there be distinction between dream and otherwise? between truth and false-hood ? between ( an imaginary ) Gandharva city and ( a real ) Patliputra?t between a fact and fancy? between cause and effect? between end, means, and ( their ) agent? between speaker, speech, and ( that which is ) to be spoken ? between one's own party, and the opposite party? Or, in such a case, how could (properties like ) stability, fluidity, heat, activeness etc. as well as (the rule ) that sound etc. are grāhya (to be received) and the ear etc. are grāhakas (receivers |-be ascertained at all? Or, why should (faults like ) uniformity, contraiety or non-acceptibility of all, not arise in ( the state of all-pervading ) negation ? And, is this ( apprehension of ) śünaytā really substantial or worthless ? Moreover, how could sva, para, and ubhaya be distinguished and how would their mutual accomplishment be possible ( in case of all-pervading negation )? And, if it is said to be due to another's intellect, how could the intellect of sva and para be distinguished ? ( 1705-1709 ).
टीका-सर्वाभावे च सर्वशून्यतायां चाभ्युपगम्यमानायां " स्वप्नोऽTH" "Facasqy" ştà a:-f arsi fatt:? grau: 1 791, सत्यमिदम् , अलीकं वा; तथा, गन्धर्वपुरमेतत् , पाटलीपुत्रादि चेदम् ; तथा, " तत्थो क्यारो ति" अयं तथ्यो निरुपचरितो मुख्यश्चतुष्पदविशेषः सिंहा,
+ Known as Patrā at the preseut timo.
