1918.] The Tattva-cintamant. 291 
between the two. Since this contingency is disastrous, we 
must adimit that there is something on the ground which operates 
in our failure to perceive the pot. This something is “non- 
our eye comes in union with the ground on which abides non- 
existence of the pot in the relation of particularity. The inter- 
se in this case is therefore of united particularity (sam- 
earns. Similarly the relation of particularity is to 
€ associated with inherence, united-inherence, etc. 
ith reference 
me. 
(1) universal, and (2) recipro- 
into the ante- 
