आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Original

विवादपदमारूढा नैकार्थविषया धियः ।
क्रमेणोत्पद्यमानत्वाद्विद्युद्दीपादिबुद्धिवत् ॥ ४७३ ॥
क्रमभावविरोधो हि ज्ञानेष्वेकार्थभाविषु ।
अन्यैरकार्यभेदस्य तदपेक्षाविरोधतः ॥ ४७४ ॥

vivādapadamārūḍhā naikārthaviṣayā dhiyaḥ |
krameṇotpadyamānatvādvidyuddīpādibuddhivat || 473 ||
kramabhāvavirodho hi jñāneṣvekārthabhāviṣu |
anyairakāryabhedasya tadapekṣāvirodhataḥ || 474 ||

The cognitions under dispute cannot pertain to one and the same thing, because they appear in succession,—like the cognitions pertaining to lightning, lamp and such things.—In all cognitions pertaining to one and the same thing, the presence of succession is incompatible. and when the effect is the same, even the dependence of other things would be incongruous.—(473-474)

Kamalaśīla

The argument may be formulated thus:—What appears in succession can never have its complete cause always in close proximity to it,—as the cognitions of Lightning, Lamp and such things;—the Cognitions under dispute all appear in succession hence there is found something which is contrary to that with which the desired character is invariably concomitant.—This Reason cannot be said to be ‘inconclusive’; because succession is not possible in the Cognition of any single object, the complete cause of which Cognition is present.—Nor can the cause be said to be dependent on other causes (which could account for the succession); because what is permanent cannot be helped by such aids; and no dependence can rightly be held to lie on what is not helpful; as this would lead to absurdities. If there were help actually rendered, then the thing would lose its permanence, This has been explained hundreds of times.—(473-474)