वादावली भिधानप्रस्तावेऽभिहितम्--न चाविद्यात्वमित्येतावदेवास्तु तलक्षणमिति वाच्यम् । तथा सत्यतीतानागतनित्थानुमेयेषु चातिव्यातेः । फलव्याप्यता लक्षणवेद्यत्वस्य तत्राभावादिति । १४०. द्वितीये पुनरनैकान्त्यमेव । आत्मनोऽपि वृत्तिजन्य व्यवहारविषयत्वात् । १४१. चिद्वपदृग्विषयत्वं तु घटादाबस्माभिर्नाङ्गीक्रियते इति भागप्रसिद्धिः । १४२. स्वप्रकाशत्वञ्च निर्वक्तव्यं यदभावो दृश्यत्वम् । अवेद्य qualification “ capacity to be the object of empirical usage of i71mediacy ' says thus : * it should 10t be said: let ' Inot being the object of cognition ' alone be the definition ; for if so there is over-perwasion in respect of (objects that are) past, future and eternally to be inferred; for ' being the object of cognition ', consisting in being pervaded by the fruit, does not exist in these 140. In the second case again, there is certainly inconclusiveness (of the probams), because the self (Atman) t०० is the content of empirical usage generated by psychoses. 141. As for being the object of cognition of the rnature of consciousness, since that is not admitted by us in the case of pot et, there is partia' 101-establish Iment (of the probams). 142. And that self-luminosity whose non-existence is cognisability has to be defined. If that is said to be
