________________
-XXXVII]
NOTES
ent circumstances or imūs to make this a multifarious ?
Why should we not recognise the उपाधिs only ? Cf. स खल्वयं कालो वस्तुशन्योऽपि बुद्धिनिर्माणः शब्दज्ञानानुपाती लौकिकानां ब्युत्थितदर्शनानां EROFTET AUTO-Otomapy on III, 52.
XXXIV anahta = non-specific, i. e., FATIS. Farata = specific, i. e., 99HT.
qoyfenterTOTI getraTi 213141Charg–Here arao suggests that the विषयs of the कर्मेन्द्रियs (except वा ) are endowed with all the constituents of the five elements in some measure. But this will lead to accepting the theory of Torontot, which is opposed to arqo's view on ta XXII, where he says *779: शब्दस्पर्शरूपरसगुणाः. Can a person not brees water with his hands? If so, then water must also be any17. See notes on Karıka XXII and S. N. S., pp. 72–73 with footnotes.
XXXV The word ant has been translated by S. N. S., as 'principal'. The translation is based upon go's phrase gitmeye Fortfa. I think that 'warder 'expresses the sense of art better than ' principal'. For, in spite of the fact that all the sense-organs bring their percepts to the port: Po, the latter itself receives these percepts for delivering them to go, as is clear from the next 1797. The criticism of S. N. S. would have been right of 3pa: tut were to retain these percepts for itself and not present them to the Spirit. Therefore, the three-fold 371: Fico acts as a warder for the Spirit and not as the principal ( one ).
XXXVII arao interprets both the lines of this as the causes of the superiority of gf. eo, on the other hand, inter
