1304 Verse 1984-1985

Original

द्वे हि रूपे कथं नाम युक्ते एकस्य वस्तुनः ।
द्वे तदा वस्तुनी प्राप्ते अपरस्पररूपतः ॥ १९८४ ॥
परस्परात्मतायां तु तद्द्वैरूप्यं विरुध्यते ।
विशेषश्चोपलभ्येत चक्षुरादिभिरिन्द्रियैः ॥ १९८५ ॥

dve hi rūpe kathaṃ nāma yukte ekasya vastunaḥ |
dve tadā vastunī prāpte aparaspararūpataḥ || 1984 ||
parasparātmatāyāṃ tu taddvairūpyaṃ virudhyate |
viśeṣaścopalabhyeta cakṣurādibhirindriyaiḥ || 1985 ||

How can it be right to say that a single thing has two forms? in fact, there would be two things, each differing from the other in form.—If they were of the same form as one another, the duality of forms would be annulled; and it would be the uncommon form that would be apprehended by the eye and other sense-organs.—(1984-1985)

Kamalaśīla

Says the Opponent—“The assertion that ‘things have two forms’ is quite definite True,—that, assertion is there; but the assertion is not right.—This is what is shown in the following—[see verses 1984-1985 above]

For instance, if there are two forms of a thing, different from one another, then there are two things; as the two forms, being different from one another, would be two different things; and it would not be right to say that a single thing has two forms.

Then again, the two forms, being not-different from the Thing itself, would be identical, both being like the form of a single thing; how then could it be a single thing having two forms?

Further, as the Particular form of a thing is not entirely different from the Universal form, there would he a possibility of the former being apprehended by the senses; and in that case there could not be the clear cut distinction that ‘the Common form is amenable to Sense-cognition and the Uncommon form is amenable to mystic cognition’.—(1984-1985)