Rogabhishagjitiya Vimana: Difference between revisions

Line 1,119:

''Samshayasama ahetu'' the reason similar to doubt is that which though being cause of doubt is used as cause of eliminating the same such as, if someone says only a part of [[Ayurveda]] , it creates doubt as to whether he is a physician or not; On this opponent says – ‘as he has said a part of [[Ayurveda]], he is a physician.’ The doubt can not be the cause of removing the same.

''Varnyasam ahetu''- the reason ([[hetu]]) given is similar to object and not different from the object, such as somebody says – ''buddhi'' (intellect) is non-eternal because of the absence of touch like ''shabda'' (sound). Here both [[buddhi]] (intellect) and ''shabda'' (sound)are objects; hence because of the absence of difference between them, the reason is similar to object and as such is fallacious.[57]

''Varnyasam ahetu''- the reason ([[hetu]]) given is similar to object and not different from the object, such as somebody says – [[buddhi]] (intellect) is non-eternal because of the absence of touch like ''shabda'' (sound). Here both [[buddhi]] (intellect) and ''shabda'' (sound)are objects; hence because of the absence of difference between them, the reason is similar to object and as such is fallacious.[57]

</div>

@@ Line 1,119: / Line 1,119: @@
 ''Samshayasama ahetu'' the reason similar to doubt is that which though being cause of doubt is used as cause of eliminating the same such as, if someone says only a part of [[Ayurveda]] , it creates doubt as to whether he is a physician or not; On this opponent says – ‘as he has said a part of  [[Ayurveda]], he is a physician.’ The doubt can not be the cause of removing the same.
-''Varnyasam ahetu''- the reason ([[hetu]]) given is similar to object and not different from the object, such as somebody says – ''buddhi'' (intellect) is non-eternal because of the absence of touch like ''shabda'' (sound). Here both [[buddhi]] (intellect) and ''shabda'' (sound)are objects; hence because of the absence of difference between them, the reason is similar to object and as such is fallacious.[57]
+''Varnyasam ahetu''- the reason ([[hetu]]) given is similar to object and not different from the object, such as somebody says – [[buddhi]] (intellect) is non-eternal because of the absence of touch like ''shabda'' (sound). Here both [[buddhi]] (intellect) and ''shabda'' (sound)are objects; hence because of the absence of difference between them, the reason is similar to object and as such is fallacious.[57]
 </div>