18 being limitless, it is not valid . Them 1et the 10n-being 1mentioned be the fourth kind of non-being . 'No', we say, as it may be included suitably in antecedent mon being and the rest. [If contact with the pot is future, the non-being of the contact is antecedent non-being ; if past, it is destruction 101-being, if never , it is absolute 17011 being. R.T.] Some say that non-being is of two kinds only, conjunction 101-being and reciprocal non-being. Others again say that non-being is of four kinds, viz., antece dent, destruction, absolute and reciprocal. To refute both of them * sy८te' (is recognised) is used. Reciprocal 107-being is only beda (difference) and that this is (an entity's) own nature is expounded elsewhere. The conjunction of the effect and cause has been refuted i॥ another place ; also amtecedent non-being and destruc tion non-being cannot be of the nature of conjunction 107-being. (So the two views are inadmissible) V (47.48) By subdivision the author now presents * being ' चेतनाचेतनत्वेन भावोऽपि द्विविधो मतः। [चेतनाचेतनत्वेन भावः अपि द्विविधः मतः ।] AS THE CONSCIOUS AND THE UNCONSCIOUS Not only non-being but being also has (internal) difference; to bring out this ८pi (also) is used. Cetogy0t : means knows, hence the word (C2472. 'To be a Cet072 is to be a knower (a . conscious entity)
