365bet娱乐

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.8.12:

啶曕ぞ啶侧ぞ啶ㄠ�佮お啶距い啶� 啶�啶︵�嵿ぐ啷傕お啶� 啶むう啶膏�嵿い啷�啶むた 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶む��啶�啶む�� 啷�
啶�啶班た啶むじ啷嵿い啷� 啶�啶班た啶氞�嵿�涏た啶ㄠ�嵿え啶� 啶�啶距�� 啶囙い啷嵿く啷囙さ 啶曕ぅ啷嵿く啶む�� 啷� 啷оエ 啷�

k膩l膩nup膩ti yadr奴pa峁� tadast墨ti prat墨yate |
paritastu paricchinna峁� 产丑腻惫补 ityeva kathyate || 12 ||

12. Its form, as connected with Time, is expressed by the verb asti. When it has a completely finished form, it is just said to be 产丑腻惫补 Being.

Commentary

There is the root 鈭�as. It is supposed to express 蝉补迟迟腻 = 鈥榖eing鈥�, 鈥榚xistence鈥�. 厂补迟迟腻 is conceived of as 苍颈迟测腻 = eternal 补办谤补尘腻 = 鈥榳ithout inner sequence鈥�, 补蝉腻诲丑测腻 = not to be brought about. How then can it be the meaning of a verb?

[Read verse 12 above]

[厂补迟迟腻 = 鈥楤eing鈥� is presented as a process (蝉腻诲丑测腻) by the verb. When presented by a verb, 蝉补迟迟腻 has distinctions of time and that is why we say: 补产丑奴迟, asti, 产丑补惫颈峁�y补迟颈 etc. A thing, as presented by nouns, has no association with time. When we hear the word 驳丑补峁璦, we understand something which is not associated with time. It was objected before that as does not express action because the word asti cannot be an answer to the question: Ki峁� karoti? The truth is that once the existence of something has already been ascertained one might ask that question and then the answer asti is impossible, not because asti does not express action or process. When there is a possibility of Devadatta dying, one can ask the same question and then the answer asli in the sense that he is still alive, still exists, is possible. The roots 鈭�办峁�, 鈭�产丑奴 and 鈭�as denote action in general. Roots like 鈭�pac denote particular actions. They can be used in apposition to karoti. Hence we conclude that they denote particular actions. Sometimes, however, in answer to the question ki峁� karoti, one answers: na karoti, 腻蝉迟别 = 鈥榟e does not do anything, he just exists.鈥� Here there seems to be a contradiction between the meanings of karoti and 腻蝉迟别. How to explain this according to the view that karoli denotes action in general and that other verbs denote particular actions. Between the general and the particular, there cannot be any contradiction. This difficulty can be resolved as follows: The question ki峁� karoti does not refer to action in general. It refers to a particular action. In the world, by action, one means a particular action, and not action in general. Where there is no particular action, there is no action at all. Where the question relates to any action, general or particular, the answer aste or 艣别迟别 is admissible. Action docs not always involve movement (parispanda). It has already been defined as k膩rak膩峁嘺峁� prav峁泃tivi艣e峁�a岣�. This conception of action holds good everywhere. Even in the sentence parvatas 迟颈峁ａ弓丑补迟颈, we understand a process from 迟颈峁ａ弓丑补迟颈. Not all agents behave in the same manner. The mountain is understood as behaving in a particular way in the above sentence, namely that of not giving up its location. Therefore, from a verb we do understand 蝉补迟迟腻 as associated with time. This very 蝉补迟迟腻 is understood as a thing from a noun. But it might be objected that both in a noun and in a verb, the root is the same and action as a process is supposed to be the meaning of a root. How is one to explain the difference between a verb and a noun coming from the same root? The difference is this: In a verb, the meaning of the root, namely, the process, is the main thing. But in a noun the meaning of the root is subordinate to that of the suffix. In the sentence odanasya 辫腻办补岣� = the cooking of rice, odana is the accessory (蝉腻诲丑补苍补) called karma of the action of cooking. (厂腻诲丑补苍补 presupposes 蝉腻诲丑测补. In the word 辫腻办补, the root pac must express the 蝉腻诲丑测补 in relation to which odana is the 蝉腻诲丑补苍补 called karma.)]

If the whole, with inner sequence and superimposed on the part, is action, the latter would become something secondary. This objection is answered as follows: [Read next verse]