आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Original

यदि तु स्यादगन्ताऽयमेकदा चान्यथा पुनः ।
परस्परविभिन्नात्मसंगतेर्भिन्नता भवेत् ॥ ७०३ ॥

yadi tu syādagantā’yamekadā cānyathā punaḥ |
parasparavibhinnātmasaṃgaterbhinnatā bhavet || 703 ||

If the object were mobile at one time and immobile at another then, inasmuch as two mutually different characters would be there, it would be two different objects.—(703)

Kamalaśīla

It might be argued that—“it is not of the same form; it is of both forms, going (mobile) and not-going (immobile); hence the criticism urged is not applicable; and the Reason too is ‘unproven’.”

The answer to this is provided in the following—[see verse 703 above]

The ‘ca’ after ‘ekadā’ should be construed after ‘punaḥ’,

What is meant is that, in the manner suggested, as the mutually contradictory characters of mobility and immobility would be imposed upon it, the object would cease to be one.—(703)

The following Text shows that for the above reason, it becomes established that the object is momentary:—[see verse 704 next]