________________
प्रथमं लक्षणम्
३७
(२५) वस्तुतस्तु एतल्लक्षणकर्तृमते विशिष्टसत्त्वं विशिष्टनिरूपिताधारतासम्बन्धेनैव द्रव्यत्वव्याप्यं, न तु समवायसम्बन्धेन,२६ तथा च
(25) In fact, in the opinion of the maker of this definition, the qualified existence is pervaded by substance-ness by the relation the state of being substratum described by qualified thing only and not by inherence relation.26 Therefore
which is the occurrence in existence, exists in quality etc. The occurrence which existing in the existence, indicated by quality etc. that occurrence exists in qualified existence also, because qualified thing is not different from unqualified thing. When the expression “having locusness of the reason determined by the determinant of reason-ness adjunct of which is that selfsome relation” is used, there would not be fault of too narrow application in the inference; "it has substanceness because it has qualified existence.” This is because the locusness which exists in substance which is indicated by indicatorness which exists in the reason qualified existence indicates occurrence, which is determined by the relation of inherence and which (occurrence) exists in qualified existence by the relation selfsomeness adjunct of which is that(occurrrence), the locusness of the absence of substanceness which exists in quality etc. the substratum of that locusness is quality etc. indicated by it, is the occurrence in the existence. That does not exist any where, therefore absence of that occurrence exists in the qualified existence. This is
the idea. 26. 7 I 440RIGHEOL-277-Not by the relation inherence etc. here the
determinant relation of hetutā(reason-hood) is the locus-ness indicated by qualified existence. The occurrence by this relation occurrence which exists in qualified existence by its relation the
