५. ६. द्वितीये सत्वविरहो वा ? असत्वविरहो वा ? नाद्यः; अस तोऽनिर्वाच्यतापातात् । नोत्तरः; ब्रह्मणोऽनिर्वाच्यतापातात् । नाद्य: ; स्वाभ्युपगतव्यवहारविषयत्वविरोधात् । ७. अथ सदसद्वैलक्षण्यमनिर्वाच्यत्वं इति मतम्, तदास्मा भिर्जगतः सदसपतानभ्युपगमात् सिद्धसाधनता । ८. अथ प्रत्येकमुभयवैलक्षण्यं विवक्षितम्, तथाप्यसद्ब्रह्मवैलक्ष ण्याभ्युपगमेन प्रस्तुतदोषानिस्तारः । 5. It cam10ot be the first, because it is opposed t0 what is admitted by (the Advaitin) himself, 18., being the object of empirical usage. 6. If it is thc sec011d, then is it 1ack of re५lity, or lack of unreality ? Not the first, because of the con tinge1ce of ir1determinability of the unreal. Not the latter because of the contingence of the indeterminability of Brahman. 7. If (the Advaitin) opines that indeterminability is to be different from the real and the unreal, si71ce we do not admit of the universe the character of the real-and-the-unreal, there is (the defect of) the estab " 8. If what is intended be the difference from each of the two individually, even then because of (the siddhartin') 20dmission of the difference (of the universe) from the 1real and Brahman, the alleged defect s not got over.
