पृष्ठम्:मूलमध्यम-कारिका (६-७ प्रकरणे).djvu/३३

रागरक्तपरीक्षानाम षष्ठं प्रकरणम् discussed here is : whether the attached ( Rakta ) Citta exists before attachment or not. If we admit that such attached mind exists before Raga then we are to admit a position in which Rakta can exist even without Raga. So we are to conclude that Raga grows with reference to Rakta but that is not proper because the opponent means to say that Rakta is what is resort ( Asraya) of Raga. But if the Rakta can exist in an unattached (Ragasunya) con- dition then we are to admit that it exists not as an Asraya of Raga. How then it will be logical to call one as Asraya of Raga which exists as Anasraya ? ||1|| Translation of the first line of the Second verse — If the opponent argues that Rakta does not exist before Raga, so Rakta is what is the Asraya of Raga, Nagarjuna's reply is that if Rakta does not exist before Raga then Raga cannot exist because whom it will resort to ? So Raga can- not be proved to exist, because each existing object must have an Adhikarana (resorting place). But we find that Raga as an existing object cannot have Rakta as Adhikarana. So Raga cannot be established independently. 2-1. अत्राह, यद्यपि त्वया रागो निषिद्धस्तथापि रतोऽस्त्यप्रतिषेधात् । न च रागमन्तरेण रत्तो युक्तः, तस्मादयमप्यस्तौति। उच्यते, स्याद्रागो यदि रक्तः स्यात्, यस्मादयं रक्तः इष्यमाण: सति वा रागे परिकल्प्येता- सति वा, उभयथा च नोपपद्यते इत्याह- सति वासति वा रागो रक्तेऽप्येष समः क्रमः ॥ २ तत्र यदि सति रागे रक्तः परिकल्प्येत, तत्राप्येष एव रागानुपपत्ति- क्रमोऽनन्तरोतो रक्त ऽपि तुल्यः । रक्ताद्यदि भवेत् पूर्व रागो रक्ततिरस्कृतः, इत्यादि। अथासति रागे रक्त इष्यते एतदप्ययुक्त यस्मात्, . २