आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Original

भ्रान्तस्यान्यविवक्षायां वाक्यं चेदन्यदीक्ष्यते ।
तथा विवक्षमप्येतत्त(क्षासामान्येत?)स्मान्नैव प्रवर्त्तते ॥ १५१६ ॥
भ्रान्ताभ्रान्तप्रयुक्तानां वैलक्षण्यं परिस्फुटम् ।
विदग्धाः प्रकृतादिभ्यो निश्चिन्वन्ति गिरामलम् ॥ १५१७ ॥

bhrāntasyānyavivakṣāyāṃ vākyaṃ cedanyadīkṣyate |
tathā vivakṣamapyetatta(kṣāsāmānyeta?)smānnaiva pravarttate || 1516 ||
bhrāntābhrāntaprayuktānāṃ vailakṣaṇyaṃ parisphuṭam |
vidagdhāḥ prakṛtādibhyo niścinvanti girāmalam || 1517 ||

“In the case of the man under an illusion, a verbal statement is found which is quite different from what the man ‘desired to say’; so also in the case of the ‘desire to speak’ in general; hence the verbal statement cannot function (towards bringing about the cognition of any desire to speak)”;—if this is urged,—(then the answer is that) there is clear distinction between words used by the man under an illusion and those used by one who is not under an illusion. Clever men are quite able to discern this difference through the context and such other circumstances.—(1516-1517)

Kamalaśīla

It must be admitted that there is difference between words used by the deluded person and those used by the person not so deluded; otherwise, a difference in the causes would make no difference in their effects. This difference clever men are quite able to discern, through the Context and other circumstances.

‘Prakṛta’ stands for the Context in which the words are used.

‘And other circumstances’;—this includes the freedom from confusion, happy facial expression and so forth.—(1516-1517)

Question:—“Why should there be a distinction among the words at all?”

Answer:—[see verses 1518-1519 next]