आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Original

तदत्र कतमं नाशं परे पर्यनुयुञ्जते ।
किं क्षणस्थितिधर्माणं भावमेव तथोदितम् ॥ ३७३ ॥
अथ भावस्वरूपस्य निवृत्तिं ध्वंससंज्ञिताम् ।
पूर्वपर्युनुयोगे हि नैव किञ्चिद्विरुध्यते ॥ ३७४ ॥

tadatra katamaṃ nāśaṃ pare paryanuyuñjate |
kiṃ kṣaṇasthitidharmāṇaṃ bhāvameva tathoditam || 373 ||
atha bhāvasvarūpasya nivṛttiṃ dhvaṃsasaṃjñitām |
pūrvaparyunuyoge hi naiva kiñcidvirudhyate || 374 ||

What sort of ‘destruction’ is it (the causelessness of) which the other people object to? (a) Is it the ‘momentary existence’ of things, as explained by us? Or the ‘cessation of the form of the entity’, called ‘disruption’ (dhvaṃsa, annihilation)?—If it is the former, then there is no quarrel.—(373-374)

Kamalaśīla

Destruction is of two sorts—positive and negative. For instance when, on account of the thing being mobile and having only a momentary existence, it becomes ‘destroyed’, this is called ‘Destruction’ (of the Positive kind); and there is the other kind of Destruction which consists in the thing losing its positive character and becoming what is called ‘disruption’, ‘annihilation’, If it is in reference to the former kind of ‘Destruction⁵ to whose ‘causelessness’ objection has been taken (by other people) on the ground of the reasons adduced above,—then it is entirely futile (as what is objected to is denied by us also).—(373-374)

The futility of the arguments is further explained:—[see verse 375 next]