पृष्ठम्:तत्त्वसङ्ख्यानम्.djvu/३८

15 [Objection raised by one who does not admit the existence of non-being against its existence.] Now, does the non-existence of the pot become connected with the ground containing the non-existence or with the ground having the pot? Not the first on account of defects such as self-dependence and so on. [as in the assertion, to 'A' having the son 'B', 'B' was born as a son]. Not the second because of contra diction. So it has to be said (that the commection of non-being') 1s with the ground only. Let that alone be the object of the experience *(the pot) tऽ 710t (on the ground) REPLY :- Let the question itself be analysed. What does the question meam ? Does it mean (i) of what sort is the ground before commection with 'non-being' or (ii) of what sort is it at the time of connection (with mon being) or (iii) if it be considered apart from 'non-being them of what sort may it be said to be ? To the first the answer is, simply * the ground with the pot . To the second, “the ground with the mon being ' of the pot. To the third, if being apart is a fact, non-existence having disappeared, “the ground with the pot' is the answer. If the distinction is mental, then the ground commected with the pot conceived by the Otherwise a similar objection may be advanced in respect of *being' (bdu८, an existent). [In the case of a pot on the ground one. might ask :-Does the pot be come connected with the ground containing the pot or with the ground without the pot ? Not the first because of the defect of self-dependence and the like mor the