________________
60
FO. . . Panglauftarl-This is the sixth and last variety of waonan. P. 26, 1. 15.
to P. 27 I, 3. P. 26 1. 16. Tayta: FFL Areau etc. nulla: fata
si s imti=rival la. 1. 17. naa &c.-One should clear the way by disproving the
प्रतियोगिसाध्य e. g. नित्यत्व of शब्द in the illustration (see N. Pr. P. 5, 1. 1). Spa &c.-The author of the Vrtti rejects the way in which older commentators or logiciaos dissolved the compound. To say "fazan t " involves a contradiction in terme (@iam); for, how can that which is an be evaporant unlegg you hold that one and the same tg may have different aspects. This would be accepting the 317417797' (the doctrine of many aspects of the Jainas! ( 7917alarfien 11. 19, 20). The author of the Vitti is here only repeating the view of older Buddhist commentators regarding the nature of the compound Aanmeritat; for, as a Jaina he could have no objection to
अनेकान्तवाद. पत्रिका Read in the third line from the bottom of P. 59 यस्या-instead of यस्य P. 59 b se fagastama......mall. The term and its application explained. to 60 a T el ......lamalariaA defined elsewhere: "9999 ufaffor
तुल्यलक्षणयोर्विरुद्धयोर्हेत्वोः संनिपातो विरुद्धाव्यभिचारी." I agar aarsia a :--Every eo proves its own conclusion, it does P. 60 a. not disprove that of its rival. Consequently, every would be
f larifi This is a serious objection. Angwer: He who wants to prove afaria of the should first clear the way by disproving rata, and vice versa. (Road qara qaraberadis.
garar:). ,, P. 60. ab aa etuerca Art-The Buddhist's criticism of facut by means of a
dilemma. अनित्यवस्तुनिषेधकं च युक्तिमात्रं यथा...The portion giving a similar dilemma against afacerea is wiskiog in the ms. of the Panjikā. As à Jaipa, who is inafan, the writer had both
the युक्ति-against नित्यत्व and अनित्यत्व-at hand. T. 9. . apa proti &c.—The first argument is urged by the P. 26. Vais'eşika, without disposing of the second which is maintained 11. 22-25. by the Mîmāmsala,
