२८ HOमूलमध्यमककारिका facátio TV 961 7199 atatora gjepota 1995 ate otstChec995517 79 ay el afef7451 Fogte atst 49: IGI 2457519 21 2#77 79377 Palafaata ofta atataas waço sual 16 Explanatory translation :-1f the opponent admits the co-existence of Raga and Rakta (even not admitting before their separate existence, for it has been shown that in case of separate independent existence the question of co-exis- tence becomes useless) and in that case as there is no in- dependent existence their co-existence will be essential ; Nagarjuna replies that if the intention of opponent is this that co-existence is possible even in the absence of separate existence, then it becomes illogical for it is clear like any- thing that co-existence is not possible in case of objects which have no separate existence. So if there is no separate existence of Raga and Rakta then there is no reason in con- ceiving of their co-existence. 11811 यावता पृथग्भावाप्रसिद्धेश्च सहभावो न सिध्यति । कतमस्मिन् पृथग्भावे सहभावं सतीच्छसि ॥९|| नास्त्येव स पृथग्मावः सहभावानपेक्षो यस्मिन् पृथग्भावे सति सहभावसिद्धिः स्यादित्यस'भावयवाह- कतमस्मिन् पृथग्भावे सहभावं सतीच्छसि । तदेवं यथोदितविचारपरामर्थन रागरक्तयोरसिद्धि निगमय- मञ्जु व्याख्या अन्यच्च पृथग्भावे सिद्ध खल्वेव पुनः सहभाबसिद्धिरभिप्रेता। सहभावसिहौ सत्यामेव वा पृथग्भावसिद्धिरिष्यते इति पक्षद्वयं
