Original
विमतेरास्पदं वस्तु प्रत्यक्षं कस्य चित्स्फुटम् ।
वस्तुसत्त्वादिहेतुभ्यः सुखदुःखादिभेदवत् ॥ ५५ ॥vimaterāspadaṃ vastu pratyakṣaṃ kasya citsphuṭam |
vastusattvādihetubhyaḥ sukhaduḥkhādibhedavat || 55 ||“The thing under dispute must clearly be perceptible to some one,—because or such reasons as being a thing, being existent and so forth:—just like the diversities of pleasure, pain, etc.—[and this some one is god].”—(55)
Kamalaśīla
There is yet another series of arguments set forth by these persons:—
(A) “That which is the substratum of the variegated and the mobile, and that which is not the substratum of these—which is the thing under dispute,—is cognised through a means of cognition other than the five beginning with the second,—just as Colour, etc. are cognised as distinguished from the character of ‘being an entity’ and so forth,—the ‘Hair of the Tortoise’ (a non-entity) being the corroborative instance per dissimilarity”.
In the argument as thus worded, the term, ‘vicitrodaya’ stands for the category of Quality, in the sense that its ‘udaya’, appearance, is ‘vicitra’ variegated; the term ‘prasyanda’ stands for the category of Mobility;—the ‘āspada’, substratum, of these two is the category of Substance;—that which is not the substratum of these two (Quality and Mobility) stands for the five categories of Quality, Action, Universal, Particular and Inherence;—such a thing is cognised through a Means of Cognition other than the five beginning loith the second,—i.e. other than Inference, Analogy, Word, Presumption and Non-apprehension; i.e. through Sense-per caption. The rest is easily intelligible.
(B) The other argument propounded by them is in the following form:—“The Thing under dispute,—which is (1) what is embraced by the Particulars of such Universals as ‘Being’ and the like, and also (2) what is not so embraced,—is perceptible to some one,—because they exist,—like Colour and the rest”.—In this statement, the term ‘Being and the like’ stands for the six non-specific (general) entities,—‘Being’, ‘Evanescent’, ‘Material Product’, ‘Cause’, ‘Universal’, ‘Particular’;—the ‘particulars’ of these go to specify Substance, Quality and Action;—hence what is ‘embraced’ by these particulars are these three categories of Substance Quality and Action;—‘what is not so embraced’ consists of the Universal and the rest. The rest is easily intelligible.—[And the Person who has the perception of all thesengs is God.]
This series of arguments is set forth in the following Text:—[see verse 55 above]