2. "When you desire to establish each in turn, let your procedure likewise embrace both; when you wish to establish both at once, let it be declared 'indescribable' from the impossibility to describe it. 3. "The fifth process is enjoined when you wish to establish the first as well as its indescribableness; when the second as well as its indescribableness, the occasion for the sixth process arises. 4. "The seventh is required when all three characters are to be employed simultaneously." _Syát_, "may be," is here an indeclinable particle in the form of a part of a verb, used to convey the idea of indeterminateness; as it has been said-- "This particle _syát_ is in the form of a verb, but, from its being connected with the sense, it denotes indeterminateness in sentences, and has a qualifying effect on the implied meaning." If, again, the word _syát_ denoted determinateness, then it would be needless in the phrase, "may be, it is;" but since it really denotes indeterminateness, "may be, it is," means "it is somehow;" _syát_, "may be," conveys the meaning of "somehow," _kathaṃchit_; and so it is not really useless. As one has said-- "The doctrine of the _syád-váda_ arises from our everywhere rejecting the idea of the absolute;[95] it depends on the _sapta-bhaṅgí-naya_, and it lays down the distinction between what is to be avoided and to be accepted." If a thing absolutely exists, it exists altogether, always, everywhere, and with everybody, and no one at any time or place would ever make an effort to obtain or avoid it, as it would be absurd to treat what is already present as an object to be obtained or avoided. But if it be relative (or indefinite), the wise will concede that at certain times and in certain places any one may seek or avoid it. Moreover, suppose that the question to be asked is this: "Is _being_ or _non-being_ the real nature of the thing?" The real nature of the thing cannot be _being_, for then you could not properly use the phrase, "It is a pot" (_ghaṭósti_), as the two words "is" and "pot" would be tautological; nor ought you to say, "It is not a pot," as the words thus used would imply a direct contradiction; and the same argument is to be used in other questions.[96] As it has been declared-- "It must not be said 'It is a pot,' since the word 'pot' implies 'is;' "Nor may you say 'it is not a pot,' for existence and non-existence are mutually exclusive," &c.