रागरक्तपरीक्षा नाम पष्ठ प्रकरणम् ३१ tence is proved) then one must admit the separateness before existence, but in that case the conception of co-exis- tence of Raga and Rakta becomes meaningless. The reason is this that co-existence is conceived to prove the existence of Raga and Rakta, but if their separate existence is proved before their co-existence, then Raga and Rakta become proved. In that case their co-existence is useless to be conceived again. If it is argued that co-existence is concei- ved with reference to objects, which are independently existent like cows and buffaloes and in the like manner why should not one conceive of the co-existence of Raga and Rakta inspite of the fact that they are independently pro- ved to be existent? On it one should be asked whether separate existence (of Raga and Rakta) which is admitted, depends on co-existence or not. If the separate existence depends on co-existence, then the separate existence before co-existence is to be doubted. If the separate existence is admitted to be independent of co-existence, then the con- ception of co-existence through separate existence is not logical because separate existence (prthak bhava) which is independent of co-existence can certainly exist without it (co-existence). So there can be no reason for conceiving co-existence through that separate existence. 119.1 एवं रक्तन रागस्य सिद्धि न सह नासह । इति । यथा च रागरक्तयोन पौर्वापर्येण सिधिर्नास्ति सहभाव न । एवं- सर्वभावानामपीत्यतिदिशबाह- रागवत सर्व धर्माणां सिद्धि न सह नासह ||१०|| इति षदिष्टमोहमूढादीनां रागरक्तवदसिडियो ज्यते। एवोक्त भगवता यो रज्य त यत्र वा रज्य त येन वा रज्य त, यो दुष्येत यत्र वा दुष्येत येन वा दुष्य त, यो मुह्य त यत्र वा मुह्यत येन वा मुह्यत, स तं धर्म न समनुपश्यति तं धर्म नोपलभते। स तं धर्म- प्रत-
