आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Original

तद्यथा चाक्षुषत्वस्य नाशेनाव्यभिचारिता ।
सामान्येन गता तच्च ध्वनौ तस्य न साधनम् ॥ १३८२ ॥
तस्य धर्मिणि सद्भावः ख्याप्यते चेत्तथा सति ।
सैव त्रिरूपताऽऽयाता भवतामपि दर्शने ॥ १३८३ ॥

tadyathā cākṣuṣatvasya nāśenāvyabhicāritā |
sāmānyena gatā tacca dhvanau tasya na sādhanam || 1382 ||
tasya dharmiṇi sadbhāvaḥ khyāpyate cettathā sati |
saiva trirūpatā’‘yātā bhavatāmapi darśane || 1383 ||

For instance, ‘visibility’ is known to be inseparable (not existing apart) from ‘destruction’, in a general way; and yet it (visibility) cannot prove it (destruction) in sound.—If, then, it be said that its presence in the object is meant,—then, in that case, under your view also, the probans becomes ‘three-featured’ as before.—(1382-1383)

Kamalaśīla

‘Tat’—Visibility.

‘Tasya’—of Destruction.

‘Cannot prove it’—cannot indicate its presence.

It might be said that—“in order to guard against the said objection, recourse may be had to the qualification that the Probans should be actually present in the object”.—In that case, under your view also, the Probans comes to have the same ‘three-featured’ character that it had under ours.—(1382-1383)

Question:—“How so?”

Answer:—[see verse 1384 next]