5 <This is a red pot' while it is actually black. Tr.] The pot (considered apart from its colour) is admitted to be a tatt'a (vide s. T.) It (tattva) is of two kinds. The sentence must be -construed by understanding , iti' thus f4a+t(1 :q () (t"ttJij I Otherwise there may be the impression that each of the two categories separately is of two sorts. The Self. dependent is that which (i) for its nature (swariipa) (ii) for being an object of valid knowledge (pramaviiayatva) 1 and (iii) for its activity (pravrtti) does not depend on another. What depends (in these respects) on another is dependent tattva. To expound this £vate (has been used). Pramanikaih (by the proof. minded) is to be understood after ivate. Finally we have :-'The Self-dependent and the dependent, thus, tattva is admitted by the proof-minded, to be of two kinds. [The word' Self-dependent' (swatantrarh) is used in an absolute sense. Every wish of the Self-dependent Being must be realised and in every activity of His He must be absolutely unhindered. As it is the primary wish of every conscious being to be happy and free from misery, the Self-dependent Being must by impli- cation be supremely happy and completely devoid of misery. Again every thing that He thinks of doing He must be able to do. These requisites are possible only if all else is under His control. Obviously there cannot be tVO self-dependent beings. vide N.S. P2 312. ] 1. Vide N.S. Pl 330.
