13 ANSwER :-This is not so (that is the two methods of division do not stand on the same level). There is the distinction between them of one being conducive to liberation (70८७८) and the other of not being condu cive to it. Non-affirmation of the everlastingmess and so on of 'non-being' and the like is comm107 to both (classifications). Therefore let the classification adopted by the Acarrya. stand (as it brings out the supremacy of Bhagavan and the dependence of everything else on Ther let the dependent category itself be divided as the conscious and the unconscious, (thus dependent category is of two kinds, the conscious and the un conscious, and onwards) REPLY :- After dividing the dependent tatu८ into the conscious and the unconscious , is division to be continued by further classification into *being' (bl u८) and 'non-being' (८badu८) or not ? Not the first as there is no particular merit in such a division. If it be said that in the division adopted by the Acarya the insentiency of * non-being ' is not brought out ; then we reply in the classification suggested the beingmess of the sentient is not made out. So here b0th classifications are alike. 9UESTION :- If so for what advantage is the present' division adopted ? REPLx :- There is this difference that, as regards the conscious and the unconscious there is no difference of view among theorists while there is one in regard to being and non-being (By refuting the view which denies
