Apohavada

ApohaVa- din argues that the realist’s dispute of a word can refer to a particular that does not serve any relevant purpose in philosophy. They argue that as it is impossible for an agent to perceive all the particulars,Dignāga considered the interpretation of conventional and symbolic signs such as the words and sentences of human language to be no more than special or conventional instances of _______ _________ _______ __________ _____ ____ __________ ___ ______ ____.
________ ________ __________ _________ ____ ________ __________ ______ _____ __________ ________ _____.
_____ ____ ___ _________ _______ ________ ________.
________ ______ _________ ______ ____ _________ _________ __________ __________.
__________ ________ ______ _________ ________ ______ ________ ___ ____ _____.
_______ __________ __________ ___ ________ ________ ______.
__________ ___ ___ ____ _______ ______ __________ ______ ___ ___.
_______ ______ ___ _________ ______ ______ ___ ___ ______ ______.
_________ ______ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ ____.
________ ____ ______ _____ _____ _________ _______ ____ ___.
__________ ____ __________ __________ ____ __________ _________.
___ _________ ______ ______ _________ ____ _________ ____ ________ ________ ___ __________.
_________ ______ __________ ___ ______ __________ ____ ________ ____ ___ ___.
__________ _________ ____ ____ ______ __________ __________ _____ ______ __________.
________ ______ _________ _____ _____ ____ ___ _____ _________ ____.
___ ______ _____ _____ _____ ___ ________.
___ _____ __________ _____ ____ ____ _____ _________ _________ __________.
_____ _____ ______ ___ _________ ________ _________ _________ _____.
__________ _______ _______ ____ ____ _______ _____.
____ _________ ____ _______ ___ _______ ________ _____ ________ ______ ____.
______ __________ ______ __________ _______ _________.
________ _________.
Get Full Answer on WhatsApp