365bet娱乐

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

啶ㄠぞ啶椸�屶ぐ啷嵿�椸�屶ぐ啶苦い啶� 啶多が啷嵿う啶距ぐ啷嵿ぅ啶� 啶曕じ啷嵿ぎ啶距�氞�嵿�氞ぞ啶�啷嬥す 啶囙し啷嵿く啶む�� 啷�
啶曕�囙�� 啶灌�嵿く啶椸�嬥い啷嵿さ啶�啶距じ啶曕�嵿い啶� 啶椸�屶ぐ啷嵿く啷囙え啷堗い啶︵お啷嬥す啷嵿く啶む�� 啷� 啷�啷�啷� 啷�
啶呧�椸�嬥ぐ啶�啷嬥す啷� 啶�啶多�嵿�氞ぞ啶�啶� 啶椸さ啶� 啶多が啷嵿う啶距ぐ啷嵿ぅ 啶夃�氞�嵿く啶む�� 啷�
啶� 啶曕た啶� 啶椸�嬥ぐ啷嵿さ啷嵿く啶むた啶班た啶曕�嵿い啷� 啶掂ぞ啶洁さ啷嵿く啶むた啶班た啶曕�嵿�� 啶夃お啷囙く啶む�� 啷� 啷�啷�啷� 啷�
啶掂た啶�啶苦え啷嵿え啷嬥そ啶�啷嵿く啶距ざ啷嵿ぐ啶苦い啷� 啶掂ぞ 啶膏�嵿く啶距う啶ムさ啶� 啶膏�嵿く啶距う啶ㄠぞ啶多�嵿ぐ啶苦い啶� 啷�
啶嗋ざ啷嵿ぐ啶苦い啶む�嵿さ啷� 啶椸�佮ぃ啶� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶距お啷嵿い啷� 啶� 啶︵�嵿ぐ啶掂�嵿く啶掂�氞え啶� 啶むい啶� 啷� 啷�啷�啷� 啷�
啶呧い啷� 啶椸�屶ぐ啶苦い啶苦ざ啶�啷嵿う啷囙え 啶椸�佮ぃ啶�啶距い啷嵿ぐ啶距き啶苦ぇ啶距え啶む�� 啷�
啶膏ぞ啶�啶距え啶距ぇ啶苦�曕ぐ啶｀�嵿く啶� 啶膏�嵿く啶距え啷嵿�� 啶椸�屶ぐ啷嵿�椸�氞�嵿�涏い啶� 啶むた啶粪�嵿�犩い啶� 啷� 啷�啷�啷� 啷�
啶呧ぅ啶距え啶距ざ啷嵿ぐ啶苦い 啶忇さ啶距く啶� 啶�啶︵�嵿く啶班�嵿ぅ啶膏�嵿い啶膏�嵿�� 啶曕�� 啶�啶掂�囙い啷� 啷�
啶�啷囙え啶距じ啷� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶むた啶粪�囙ぇ啶距く啶距�椸�嬥ぐ啶苦い啶� 啶掂�嵿く啶�啶︵た啶多�嵿く啶む�� 啷� 啷�啷�啷� 啷�
啶呧ぅ 啶氞ぞ啶掂�嵿く啶むた啶班た啶曕�嵿い啷嬥そ啶�啶�啶ㄠ�嵿く啶距お啷嬥す啶膏�嵿い啷嵿さ啶�啷囙し啷嵿く啶む�� 啷�
啶椸�屶ぐ啷囙さ啶距く啶�啶む�� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶距お啷嵿い啶� 啶曕た啶�啷佮�曕�嵿い啶�啶оた啶曕�� 啶むい啶� 啷� 啷�啷�啷� 啷�

n膩gaurgauriti 艣abd膩rtha岣� kasm膩cc膩poha i峁�yate |
kena hyagotvam膩sakta峁� gauryenaitadapohyate || 989 ||
agorapoho ya艣c膩ya峁� gavi 艣abd膩rtha ucyate |
sa ki峁� gorvyatirikto v膩'vyatirikta upeyate || 990 ||
vibhinno'py膩艣rito v膩 sy膩dathav膩 sy膩dan膩艣rita岣� |
膩艣ritatve gu峁嘺岣� pr膩pto na dravyavacana峁� tata岣� || 991 ||
ato gauriti艣abdena gu峁嘺m膩tr膩bhidh膩nata岣� |
s膩m膩n膩dhikara峁噛a峁� sy膩nna gaurgacchati ti峁ａ弓hati || 992 ||
ath膩n膩艣rita ev膩ya峁� yadyarthastasya ko bhavet |
yen膩sau prati峁�edh膩y膩goriti vyapadi艣yate || 993 ||
atha c膩vyatirikto'yamany膩pohastvaye峁�yate |
gaurev膩yamata岣� pr膩pta岣� kimuktamadhika峁� tata岣� || 994 ||

鈥淲hy is the denotation of the word (鈥榗ow鈥�) held to be the Apoha鈥攊n the form 鈥榯he cow is not non-cow鈥�? Who has ever attributed the character of the non-cow to the cow鈥攖hat it is denied here?鈥擨t is held that it is the 鈥榚xclusion of the non-cow鈥� in the cow, which forms the denotation of the word;鈥攊s this held to be something different from the cow? Or non-different?鈥擨f it is different, does it abide鈥攐r not abide鈥攁nywhere? If it does abide, then it becomes a quality, and the word cannot be denotative of the substance;鈥攁nd thus as the word 鈥榗ow鈥� would denote only a quality, there would be no co-ordination in such expressions as 鈥榯he cow moves鈥�, 鈥榯he cow stands鈥攊f it does not abide in any thing, then what would be the sense in which it could be mentioned, for the purpose of exclusion, by the term 鈥�补驳辞岣�鈥�, 鈥榦f the non-cow鈥�?鈥擨f, lastly, the 鈥楢poha鈥�, 鈥榚xclusion of others鈥� is held by you to be non-different (from the cow),鈥攖hen it comes to be the same as cow; what more would, in that case, be expressed (by the term 鈥楢poha鈥�)?鈥濃��(989-994)

 

Kamala艣墨la鈥檚 commentary (tattvasa峁僩rahapa帽jik膩):

鈥淔耻谤迟丑别谤, Apoha, Exclusion, being an Action, it behoves you to point out its object (i.e. the object excluded). That is to say, you explain 鈥�Apoha鈥� as 鈥榥ot being the non-Cow鈥�; now is this object of the Apoha, the Cow or the non-Cow?鈥擨f it pertains to the Cow, how can there be negation of the Cow in the Cow itself?鈥擨f, on the other hand, it pertains to the non-Cow, how can the Apoha or Exclusion of one thing (non-Cow) lead to the comprehension of another thing (the Cow)? Certainly, when the Khadira tree is cut, the cutting does not fall upon the 笔补濒腻艣补 tree.鈥擣urther, if the phrase 鈥榯he Cow is not the non-Cow鈥� is explained as the negation, in the Cow, of the non-Cow,鈥攖hen you should explain who has ever conceived of the Cow as the non-Cow,鈥攚hich conception would be negatived by the said Apoha?鈥�

The Arguer regards the first two alternatives as irrelevant, hence he sets forth the third alternative [that there is preclusion, in the Cow, of the non-Cow闭:鈥摆see verses 989-994 above]

The particle 鈥�ca鈥� (in Text, 989) has the collective sense; what is meant by the sentence is鈥攚hy do you assert the denotation of the word 鈥楥ow鈥� to be the Apoha in the form of 鈥楴ot non-Cow鈥�?

鈥榃hy should it not be so asserted鈥�? (asks the Buddhist).

The answer is鈥斺��Who has, etc. etc.鈥�

鈥淔or the following reason also Apoha cannot be accepted:鈥擝ecause none of the alternatives possible under that theory is admissible: The Apoha, or Exclusion, of the non-Cow in the Cow,鈥攊s this (A) Different, or (B) Non-different鈥�(from the Cow)?鈥�(A) If it is different; (a) does it abide (in the Cow)? Or (6) does it not abide in it?鈥�(a) If it does abide in it, then, inasmuch as it abides in it, it becomes a Quality; that is, the word 鈥楥ow鈥� denotes a Quality, and not the Substance, the animal, Cow; and tinder the circumstances, there can be no such Co-ordination as that expressed in the words 鈥榯he Cow is standing鈥�, 鈥榯he Cow is moving鈥�,鈥�(b) If, on the other hand, it does not abide in it, then what is the significance of the Genitive ending in the phrase 鈥�补驳辞岣� 补辫辞丑补岣�鈥� (鈥榯he Apoha of the non-Cow鈥�)?鈥�(B) If, lastly, the Apoha is non-different from the Cow, then it is the same as the Cow, and the postulating of it is entirely futile.鈥濃��(989-994)