पृष्ठम्:तत्त्वसङ्ख्यानम्.djvu/४०

17 counter-positive is destroyed does future non-being exist. It does not exist prior to the destruction of the Counter-p0SIt1ve OBJECTION :- If so, the destruction of prior 101 being, the prior non-being of destruction, 2 thus there ANSWER the counter-positive (the 27८ty०g, say the pot) is the same as the destruction of its prior non-being and the prior 101-being of destruction. In that case the destruction of the pot would mean the disappearance of the disappearance of prior 1011 being, thus prior non-being would raise its head. No, we say, for like the pot, the destruction of the pot is also opposed to it (namely prior non-being) The non-being which has no limit is eternal mon being. In so defining, the object is (to make known) that eternal non-being exists always Now, avoiding the commonly used name, *absolute 101-being', what is the point in inventing another name (viz., eternal non-being) ? The answer is that the definition also may be indicated by the name itself. By some it is said that absolute non-being is that which has conjunction as its counter-positive (27atiy०g ) thus the 101-being of the conjunction between this pot and this ground. The definition of absolute non-being adopted (viz. , eternal non-being) is to refute this also (viz., the definition adopted by the opponent). Not 1. Destruction having for its counter-positive prior non-being 2. Prior non-being having destruction for its counter-positive 3. Vide s.T. p 42